Monday, October 6, 2014
Gone Girl Done Gone
After one viewing of David Fincher's Gone Girl, I do not have a lot to add to my previous thoughts about the book. The movie hews very close to the book. Plus there is the problem of my mind filling in details from the book as I watched the movie, which makes it more difficult to compare the two without a second viewing.
The report about rewriting the ending was probably true, but the substance of that denouement was unchanged from the book. In fact, I might have liked the book better in that regard, though again the movie zipped by so fast that I need to see it again to know what was missing and added.
The one part of the book that I had a big problem with, the one involving the white trash at the lodgings, was cleaned up quite a bit by Fincher. Much of the nonsense from the book was removed, including the fishing sojourn. It still is the weakest point in the movie (hanging out at the swimming pool?), but it did not drag down the film.
Surprisingly the scene with Nick at the mall was not in the movie. That mall scenes were the creepiest parts of the book, and I kinda thought Fincher would be all over those, but what did appear was so brief that it did not make much of an impact. Is it possible that this scene was filmed but cut? It is possible that we will see a longer cut on the home video release, though Fincher is not known for making available multiple edits. I do feel that some scenes could have been fleshed out, but I can understand why this type of movie cannot sustain a longer running time.
The score is fantastic. Traditionalists will hate it like they did the other Reznor/Ross scores.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
What If DM Composed a Song for Twin Peaks
With this week's release of the astonishing Blu-ray package of the complete Twin Peaks, a few things came to mind. Here is one. Blue Dress is Depeche Mode's Twin Peaks song. No, Martin Gore did not write it for Twin Peaks, nor was it ever connected to the show. But it has that....sound that is not far off in synthpop terms, and coincidentally Violator was released one month before the show's debut episode. Blue Dress also has those "pervy" lyrics that seem to fit in perfectly with Lynch's Northwest Passage.
Friday, August 1, 2014
The Trading Post
I was convinced that little would happen on the trade deadline day, for the reason that nowadays very few teams are willing to give up quality prospects. I was wrong, partially.
What happened is that many major league players were traded, with not much to note on the minor league side of things. Sure, several minor league players changed hands. But the real value resided with the known players already playing in the majors. To understand what I mean, take a look at this ranking of the prospects traded by Baseball America. Billy McKinney flew under the radar in that big Cubs-Athletics July 4th trade, and yet he is ranked higher than any other minor leaguer traded yesterday. Bad news for Tampa, who reportedly could have had Addison Russell for David Price before the Cubs pulled the trigger. In fact, it is perplexing that Tampa made this deal considering how little they received in return. Maybe Tampa knows more than the so-called experts, and their trade history would indicate they know what they are doing, but on paper, this trade looks a lot better for Detroit than Tampa.
I am biased about this next team, but I doubt that I was the only person dumbfounded by the two Cardinal trades. First, the trade violated the "cardinal" rule, followed by Theo Epstein, that you trade away guys who are performing at their peak, and you trade for guys whose recent disappointing performance has diminished their value. Justin Masterson fits that last description, but he is also coming off an injury and a significant reduction in his velocity. He is also set to become a free agent after the season. A lot here not to like, especially for the cost of a decent prospect.
The other Cardinals trade is even worse. Lackey is in the middle of a good year and will pitch next year for a measly $500,000, but he is a pitcher with a significant injury history and at age 36 does not figure to survive another one. Worth a prospect? Yes. Worth two major league caliber players? Not so much. The only thing I can think of is that the Cardinals brass thinks that the league has figured out Allen Craig, with little chance of a return to the type of productivity he showed in previous years. Also, many people probably do not realize that Craig is 30-which helps to put into perspective all of those Cubs prospects on the verge of hitting the major league club at age 22, instead of their late 20s. The biggest mistake here? Not trading Allen Craig during the last off season, when he could have brought much more.
What happened is that many major league players were traded, with not much to note on the minor league side of things. Sure, several minor league players changed hands. But the real value resided with the known players already playing in the majors. To understand what I mean, take a look at this ranking of the prospects traded by Baseball America. Billy McKinney flew under the radar in that big Cubs-Athletics July 4th trade, and yet he is ranked higher than any other minor leaguer traded yesterday. Bad news for Tampa, who reportedly could have had Addison Russell for David Price before the Cubs pulled the trigger. In fact, it is perplexing that Tampa made this deal considering how little they received in return. Maybe Tampa knows more than the so-called experts, and their trade history would indicate they know what they are doing, but on paper, this trade looks a lot better for Detroit than Tampa.
I am biased about this next team, but I doubt that I was the only person dumbfounded by the two Cardinal trades. First, the trade violated the "cardinal" rule, followed by Theo Epstein, that you trade away guys who are performing at their peak, and you trade for guys whose recent disappointing performance has diminished their value. Justin Masterson fits that last description, but he is also coming off an injury and a significant reduction in his velocity. He is also set to become a free agent after the season. A lot here not to like, especially for the cost of a decent prospect.
The other Cardinals trade is even worse. Lackey is in the middle of a good year and will pitch next year for a measly $500,000, but he is a pitcher with a significant injury history and at age 36 does not figure to survive another one. Worth a prospect? Yes. Worth two major league caliber players? Not so much. The only thing I can think of is that the Cardinals brass thinks that the league has figured out Allen Craig, with little chance of a return to the type of productivity he showed in previous years. Also, many people probably do not realize that Craig is 30-which helps to put into perspective all of those Cubs prospects on the verge of hitting the major league club at age 22, instead of their late 20s. The biggest mistake here? Not trading Allen Craig during the last off season, when he could have brought much more.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day Five
I would feel better about Bayou Maharajah if I had not seen this story before. Talented jazz musician imbibes and dies young. The story might be lacking but the music is rewarding. Watch this documentary for the music. In the case of this festival, we were rewarded with a bonus performance by the great Henry Butler following the film. I have not seen many live piano performances, so I was truly wowed by this virtuoso. A real treat for those who stayed till the end of the festival.
Ebertfest 2014, Day Four
Ebertfest used to have a "free kids matinee" on Saturday mornings. Why that ended, I do not know. Maybe the scarcity of quality family films made it difficult to program. Whatever the case, it kinda returned this year with the delightful Wajdja. That might be the first time I have ever written (or said) the word "delightful," so do not take this recommendation lightly. The character Wajdja reminds me a lot of the title character in The Great Brain books, but it is unlikely that the writer/director Haifaa Al Mansour ever read those Utah-based books.
A Simple Life is one of those slice of life movies that stays with you due to the power of the story and the filmmaking. At the end I felt like I was a better person for having seen it. What more can I say?
I wish that liked Goodbye Solo more. Filmmaker Ramin Bahrani has taken the minimalist approach before with a lot of success, but this time I found myself not caring. Three months later I barely remember it.
I am afraid that if I were to revisit Oliver Stone's oeuvre that his films would not fare very well compared to my current lofty opinion of many of them. This was my first viewing of Born on the Fourth of July, and I was surprised by how Stone bombards the audience to the point of nausea. Maybe that should be expected considering his other films, but I was definitely not expecting a film that is not that far off from Natural Born Killers. TAKE IT DOWN A COUPLE OF NOTCHES, OLIVER. OR FOUR OR FIVE NOTCHES.
A Simple Life is one of those slice of life movies that stays with you due to the power of the story and the filmmaking. At the end I felt like I was a better person for having seen it. What more can I say?
I wish that liked Goodbye Solo more. Filmmaker Ramin Bahrani has taken the minimalist approach before with a lot of success, but this time I found myself not caring. Three months later I barely remember it.
I am afraid that if I were to revisit Oliver Stone's oeuvre that his films would not fare very well compared to my current lofty opinion of many of them. This was my first viewing of Born on the Fourth of July, and I was surprised by how Stone bombards the audience to the point of nausea. Maybe that should be expected considering his other films, but I was definitely not expecting a film that is not that far off from Natural Born Killers. TAKE IT DOWN A COUPLE OF NOTCHES, OLIVER. OR FOUR OR FIVE NOTCHES.
Ebertfest 2014, Day Three
The nice thing about writing about films months after you see them is that you now have some perspective. Some films are memorable, and some films fall into the abyss of memories. He Who Gets Slapped falls into the former category. Not just that, it is a film that I would definitely like to see again. Lon Chaney shows that he is more than just a man of a thousand faces, and the climax might be one of the greatest every filmed. That lion scene...
I wish I could be as impressed with Capote. It is a showcase for Hoffman but otherwise a rather standard film about a story that was anything but standard. I didn't remember much about it from the first time that I saw it several years ago, and that is not surprising now that I have seen it twice. Still glad that it showed at the festival due to Hoffman's death and the presence of Bennett Miller, who was a longtime friend of Hoffman.
Do the Right Thing is a much better film than I remember. I first watched it in film class twenty years ago. This is one where life experience come in handy to better appreciate what Lee is trying to say. Despite the music and styles that are right out of the 80s, Lee's film transcends those dated aspects to be a true film for the ages. By the way, word is that Lee went up to the projection booth to correct the framing. He also reportedly asked for the film to be louder. It was plenty loud where I was sitting, though in a theater as large as The Virginia there are bound to be some dead spots. Interesting that some people complained about how LOUD the sound was. Yes, it was loud, and it was also loud for Born on the Fourth of July. I was told that the movies were played at a standard theater level, and they would not raise it (for Lee) or lower it. Not enough to bother me, but I can understand how some people might be bothered by it. My advice to those people? Bring earplugs with you, just in case. By the way, Lee seemed like a nice, affable guy. The true test of that is when the dumb questions from the audience begin.
I wish I could be as impressed with Capote. It is a showcase for Hoffman but otherwise a rather standard film about a story that was anything but standard. I didn't remember much about it from the first time that I saw it several years ago, and that is not surprising now that I have seen it twice. Still glad that it showed at the festival due to Hoffman's death and the presence of Bennett Miller, who was a longtime friend of Hoffman.
Do the Right Thing is a much better film than I remember. I first watched it in film class twenty years ago. This is one where life experience come in handy to better appreciate what Lee is trying to say. Despite the music and styles that are right out of the 80s, Lee's film transcends those dated aspects to be a true film for the ages. By the way, word is that Lee went up to the projection booth to correct the framing. He also reportedly asked for the film to be louder. It was plenty loud where I was sitting, though in a theater as large as The Virginia there are bound to be some dead spots. Interesting that some people complained about how LOUD the sound was. Yes, it was loud, and it was also loud for Born on the Fourth of July. I was told that the movies were played at a standard theater level, and they would not raise it (for Lee) or lower it. Not enough to bother me, but I can understand how some people might be bothered by it. My advice to those people? Bring earplugs with you, just in case. By the way, Lee seemed like a nice, affable guy. The true test of that is when the dumb questions from the audience begin.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day Two
When the festival lineup was announced, I immediately pegged it as being overloaded with heavy, dramatic films. While I could not be certain since I had only seen two of the films, a quick perusal of the summaries made up my mind. This was disappointing. One of the great things about the festival in the past was its diversity, and I am not just talking about the identity of the filmmaker. Subject matter was all over the place, as Ebert did not shy away from horror, fantasy, sci-fi, comedy, and action films in constructing the lineup. The festival used to have a Saturday matinee free to kids. For whatever the reason this came to an end several years ago, which is a shame since often these films were among the festival favorites, and they would also help to lighten the tone of the festival's darker films (one year I counted three films that included cat deaths!) The festival also used to include a 70mm film which often relied more on spectacle than talky drama, not to mention having a budget that dwarfed the typical indie film on display. Sure, the festival still has some traditions, such as the silent film accompanied by a live orchestra and a music themed film. But this year even those two films dwelt with failure and downfall. It can all be a little too much. At least no cats died.
But on to the films. I liked Museum Hours. The idea is appealing. But at 107 minutes, the film really tests the patience of the audience when there is scant plot and dialogue, not to mention being dominated by stationary photography. It could have easily been twenty minutes shorter without lessening the impact. I talked to others who volunteered that they were falling asleep during the movie, and I suspect this effect was widespread among the older Ebertfest crowd.
Short Term 12 is Brie Larson's movie. It was a big crowd pleaser, thanks in large part to the syrupy ending that managed to tie up several difficulties in such a tidy manner that made it look like it was written by a studio executive. I predict big things for Larson, who reminds me a lot of a youngish Jody Foster. Perhaps not coincidentally Larson is also dabbling in direction.
Now on to the first? film of the festival that Roger Ebert had the opportunity to see. I was with Young Adult until the ending. I am not talking about the climax at her ex's party. There is an extended denouement at the geeky Matt's place that does not ring true. It is not the resistance to change that I have a problem with, but rather that final encounter with Matt and Matt's sister's flattery. Both scenes felt forced and arbitrary. It is no surprise that some people have surmised that those last two scenes were a fiction of Mavis' "young adult" writer's mind.
Patton Oswalt continued where he left off on Day 0 with a loquacious discourse on the movie (and other things) that the moderator foolishly tried to reign in. Definitely one of my favorite festival guests in the 14 years I have been attending.
But on to the films. I liked Museum Hours. The idea is appealing. But at 107 minutes, the film really tests the patience of the audience when there is scant plot and dialogue, not to mention being dominated by stationary photography. It could have easily been twenty minutes shorter without lessening the impact. I talked to others who volunteered that they were falling asleep during the movie, and I suspect this effect was widespread among the older Ebertfest crowd.
Short Term 12 is Brie Larson's movie. It was a big crowd pleaser, thanks in large part to the syrupy ending that managed to tie up several difficulties in such a tidy manner that made it look like it was written by a studio executive. I predict big things for Larson, who reminds me a lot of a youngish Jody Foster. Perhaps not coincidentally Larson is also dabbling in direction.
Now on to the first? film of the festival that Roger Ebert had the opportunity to see. I was with Young Adult until the ending. I am not talking about the climax at her ex's party. There is an extended denouement at the geeky Matt's place that does not ring true. It is not the resistance to change that I have a problem with, but rather that final encounter with Matt and Matt's sister's flattery. Both scenes felt forced and arbitrary. It is no surprise that some people have surmised that those last two scenes were a fiction of Mavis' "young adult" writer's mind.
Patton Oswalt continued where he left off on Day 0 with a loquacious discourse on the movie (and other things) that the moderator foolishly tried to reign in. Definitely one of my favorite festival guests in the 14 years I have been attending.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day One
At one point in Life Itself a point of criticism is introduced, concerning the Siskel & Ebert tv show and its effect on criticism. The main point is that the show lightly touches on each movie and movies are too complex to be graded on a mere "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" basis. Ebert defends the format of the show, though he does not deny the gist of the argument.
A similar point could be made about Life Itself. It merely touches on a few highlights and lowlights of Ebert's life without the kind of in-depth exploration that Ebert's life warranted. For example, much of Ebert's memoir is devoted to Ebert's life in Champaign and Urbana, but this part of Ebert's life is covered in just a few minutes in the documentary. This and other areas are barely referred to probably because Steve James could not find the important people from those periods of Ebert's life, as many of them had already passed on. Ebert's father, who was a great influence on his life, died just after Ebert graduated from high school. Ebert's mother later became an alcoholic (and somewhat out of control), which would seem to tie in to Ebert's later problems with the bottle. Neither of these issues was discussed in the documentary. Other areas that could have and probably should have received more coverage included Ebert's relationship with Russ Meyer, Ebert's love of film festivals and the people who attended them, Ebert's celebrity interviews, and Ebert's love of literature. Ebert is always associated with movies, but he was quoted as saying that he preferred reading to the visual arts. Interesting. But evidently not interesting enough to Steve James, who does not include this in the documentary.
James also relies too much on Ebert's inner circle. Sure, they are great, but Herzog, Scorsese, Morris, and Bahrani are a little too close to Ebert, not to mention that they do not have much to offer about Ebert's early years. The views of Corliss and Rosenbaum are offered as a counterpoint, but I wanted more. Ebert's review of Blue Velvet is briefly mentioned, but missing is a more comprehensive look at Ebert's writing. For example, concerning Blue Velvet and others, it is clear that Ebert had hangups that he could not look past. In this case it involved the poor treatment of women. Never mind that the filmmaker did not necessarily condone this behavior. Other examples of this included Ebert's reviews of Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. An even more curious example is Ebert's review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie that was even directed by a woman. It is not just that Ebert did not like the movie-he was offended by it. His review is so vitriolic that one wonders if he was in a really, really bad mood when he saw the movie. Could this be the same guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?
Another issue that never comes through in the film is Ebert's views on religion. Ebert was not a religious person in the doctrinal Catholic sense, but he was certainly shaped by religion. It is another theme that is ignored.
James focused in on certain parts of Ebert's life, and the result is a quality work. Only so much can be covered in two hours, and James was limited in who he could interview because so many of Ebert's associates are no longer around. Life Itself has a lot of heart, and it is never dull. Those with only a passing familiarity with Ebert will probably find it entertaining and emotionally captivating. But Ebert lived a rich and interesting life, and I wish more of this was in the film.
A similar point could be made about Life Itself. It merely touches on a few highlights and lowlights of Ebert's life without the kind of in-depth exploration that Ebert's life warranted. For example, much of Ebert's memoir is devoted to Ebert's life in Champaign and Urbana, but this part of Ebert's life is covered in just a few minutes in the documentary. This and other areas are barely referred to probably because Steve James could not find the important people from those periods of Ebert's life, as many of them had already passed on. Ebert's father, who was a great influence on his life, died just after Ebert graduated from high school. Ebert's mother later became an alcoholic (and somewhat out of control), which would seem to tie in to Ebert's later problems with the bottle. Neither of these issues was discussed in the documentary. Other areas that could have and probably should have received more coverage included Ebert's relationship with Russ Meyer, Ebert's love of film festivals and the people who attended them, Ebert's celebrity interviews, and Ebert's love of literature. Ebert is always associated with movies, but he was quoted as saying that he preferred reading to the visual arts. Interesting. But evidently not interesting enough to Steve James, who does not include this in the documentary.
James also relies too much on Ebert's inner circle. Sure, they are great, but Herzog, Scorsese, Morris, and Bahrani are a little too close to Ebert, not to mention that they do not have much to offer about Ebert's early years. The views of Corliss and Rosenbaum are offered as a counterpoint, but I wanted more. Ebert's review of Blue Velvet is briefly mentioned, but missing is a more comprehensive look at Ebert's writing. For example, concerning Blue Velvet and others, it is clear that Ebert had hangups that he could not look past. In this case it involved the poor treatment of women. Never mind that the filmmaker did not necessarily condone this behavior. Other examples of this included Ebert's reviews of Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. An even more curious example is Ebert's review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie that was even directed by a woman. It is not just that Ebert did not like the movie-he was offended by it. His review is so vitriolic that one wonders if he was in a really, really bad mood when he saw the movie. Could this be the same guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?
Another issue that never comes through in the film is Ebert's views on religion. Ebert was not a religious person in the doctrinal Catholic sense, but he was certainly shaped by religion. It is another theme that is ignored.
James focused in on certain parts of Ebert's life, and the result is a quality work. Only so much can be covered in two hours, and James was limited in who he could interview because so many of Ebert's associates are no longer around. Life Itself has a lot of heart, and it is never dull. Those with only a passing familiarity with Ebert will probably find it entertaining and emotionally captivating. But Ebert lived a rich and interesting life, and I wish more of this was in the film.
Ebertfest 2014, Day Zero
Bringing back memories of sleeping through political science and classic civ (when I bothered to attend), I returned to Foellinger Auditorium on Tuesday to attend the showing of the original version of The Taking of Pelham, One, Two, Three. Not a huge crowd, and technical aspects were lacking, but those that did attend were treated to the musings of the often hilarious Patton Oswalt, who introduced the film and took questions afterwards. I am sure that even those who were not thrilled by the movie were entertained by Oswalt's energetic and insightful banter which at times verged into standup territory. And Pelham is one of those movies worthy of such a discussion.
A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry? And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme. The police know exactly where the train stopped. Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped. Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players. Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.
A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry? And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme. The police know exactly where the train stopped. Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped. Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players. Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Play It Again
Today's Cubs-Phillies game featured an almost replay. Darwin Barney was hit by a pitch. The umpire ruled that it was a foul ball. Renteria discussed it with the umpires for about four minutes in old school style, but no replay was forthcoming. I do not know why the replay was not allowed. The broadcasters were equally clueless, and as far as I know no definitive explanation was ever provided.
One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike. Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat. This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out. Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out. Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.
One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike. Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat. This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out. Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out. Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
SCOTUS Run Amok
Is the issue really this simple? Yes, it is.
The first sentence-"In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one."
The last sentence-" A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn’t sound much like a functioning democracy to me."
Scary.
It would be scarier if not for the definite possibility that Hillary will serve eight years following Obama, thus providing an excellent opportunity to replace one or more Republican leaning justices. Scalia is 78 years old. Considering that he is not the healthiest looking 78, it is extremely unlikely he will last on the bench another ten years. Kennedy is a few months behind him. On the left side of things is Ginsburg, who at age 81 might want to consider retiring while Obama still has a chance to name a replacement, just in case Hillary does not win.
The first sentence-"In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one."
The last sentence-" A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn’t sound much like a functioning democracy to me."
Scary.
It would be scarier if not for the definite possibility that Hillary will serve eight years following Obama, thus providing an excellent opportunity to replace one or more Republican leaning justices. Scalia is 78 years old. Considering that he is not the healthiest looking 78, it is extremely unlikely he will last on the bench another ten years. Kennedy is a few months behind him. On the left side of things is Ginsburg, who at age 81 might want to consider retiring while Obama still has a chance to name a replacement, just in case Hillary does not win.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Buying What He's Selling
The first thing I thought when I read a tweet that Duke's coach congratulated Mercer's team in their locker room after the game was, and without any hesitation, that conniving bastard is trying to rewrite the headline. Instead of the headline being "Duke loses in first round," it becomes "Coach K magnanimously congratulates winning team." And, right now, the headline on the main page and the sports page of USA Today is "Coach K’s classy move after loss." It is a self-serving move and nothing else. Win or lose, it has to be about him.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
The Real Home Court Advantage
Despite being a high seed, UofI was not allowed to host their first NIT game due to long scheduled renovation work being done on Assembly Hall, err, SFC. So they were shipped out to Boston. Not an enviable situation against an always dangerous Patriot League team, you say? Well, that disadvantage was greatly diminished when the crowd turned out to be in favor of UofI. One estimate put the crowd at 1,000 Illini fans, with the remaining 327 cheering for BU. How is that possible? I don't know. 327 would seem to be a really weak turnout for the hometown school, especially one who should have developed a solid following thanks to a 24-10 record. Some of the Illini fans must have traveled, but I doubt that number could have been very large as Boston just is not a great vacation destination this time of year. The vast majority of the fans must have come from UofI's local alumnae base in the Boston area.
Did it actually matter? Don't underestimate the power of crowd support, especially when your team is trying to come back from 17 points down.
Did it actually matter? Don't underestimate the power of crowd support, especially when your team is trying to come back from 17 points down.
Monday, March 17, 2014
It's catching
The catchiest Beatles song? When I say catchy, I mean the type of song you just cannot get out of your head--not necessarily the best. I can understand it when some people would give this distinction to a Ringo song, but I am actually going with a song I really like, and haven't heard it so many times that I am sick of it.
Rocky Raccoon, not to be confused with Rocket Raccoon in the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy, is that song for me. I normally prefer John songs, but this Paul song is perfect for what it is. As with most of the white album songs, I prefer the demo version. If you haven't heard the white album demos, well, you really need to.
Now somewhere in the black mountain hills of Dakota
There lived a young boy named Rocky Raccoon
And one day his woman ran off with another guy
Hit young Rocky in the eye Rocky didn't like that
He said I'm gonna get that boy
So one day he walked into town
Booked himself a room in the local saloon
Rocky Raccoon checked into his room
Only to find Gideon's bible
Rocky had come equipped with a gun
To shoot off the legs of his rival
His rival it seems had broken his dreams
By stealing the girl of his fancy
Her name was Magil and she called herself Lil
But everyone knew her as Nancy
Now she and her man who called himself Dan
Were in the next room at the hoe down
Rocky burst in and grinning a grin
He said Danny boy this is a showdown
But Daniel was hot, he drew first and shot
And Rocky collapsed in the corner, ah
D'da d'da d'da da da da
D'da d'da d'da da da da
D'da d'da d'da da d'da d'da d'da d'da
Do do do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do d'do d'do d'do d'do
Do do do do do do
Now the doctor came in stinking of gin
And proceeded to lie on the table
He said Rocky you met your match
And Rocky said, doc it's only a scratch
And I'll be better I'll be better doc as soon as I am able
And now Rocky Raccoon he fell back in his room
Only to find Gideon's bible
Gideon checked out and he left it no doubt
To help with good Rocky's revival, ah
Oh yeah, yeah
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do d'do d'do d'do d'do
Do do do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do, come on, Rocky boy
D'do d'do d'do do do do, come on, Rocky boy
D'do d'do d'do do do d'do d'do d'do d'do
The story of Rocky there
Rocky Raccoon, not to be confused with Rocket Raccoon in the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy, is that song for me. I normally prefer John songs, but this Paul song is perfect for what it is. As with most of the white album songs, I prefer the demo version. If you haven't heard the white album demos, well, you really need to.
Now somewhere in the black mountain hills of Dakota
There lived a young boy named Rocky Raccoon
And one day his woman ran off with another guy
Hit young Rocky in the eye Rocky didn't like that
He said I'm gonna get that boy
So one day he walked into town
Booked himself a room in the local saloon
Rocky Raccoon checked into his room
Only to find Gideon's bible
Rocky had come equipped with a gun
To shoot off the legs of his rival
His rival it seems had broken his dreams
By stealing the girl of his fancy
Her name was Magil and she called herself Lil
But everyone knew her as Nancy
Now she and her man who called himself Dan
Were in the next room at the hoe down
Rocky burst in and grinning a grin
He said Danny boy this is a showdown
But Daniel was hot, he drew first and shot
And Rocky collapsed in the corner, ah
D'da d'da d'da da da da
D'da d'da d'da da da da
D'da d'da d'da da d'da d'da d'da d'da
Do do do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do d'do d'do d'do d'do
Do do do do do do
Now the doctor came in stinking of gin
And proceeded to lie on the table
He said Rocky you met your match
And Rocky said, doc it's only a scratch
And I'll be better I'll be better doc as soon as I am able
And now Rocky Raccoon he fell back in his room
Only to find Gideon's bible
Gideon checked out and he left it no doubt
To help with good Rocky's revival, ah
Oh yeah, yeah
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do d'do d'do d'do d'do
Do do do do do do
D'do d'do d'do do do do, come on, Rocky boy
D'do d'do d'do do do do, come on, Rocky boy
D'do d'do d'do do do d'do d'do d'do d'do
The story of Rocky there
Monday, March 3, 2014
Another AA Down the Toilet
They have one year to program a decent show...and that is the best they can come up with? What has made this show so bad is that there is really no incentive to make the show better. They will still pull in the ratings, and there really has been no correlation between "bad shows" and lower ratings in the show's history. It is similar to the Super Bowl, where this year's blow out should have produced really low ratings, but didn't. Even worse is the realization that The Golden Globes is infinitely better, with better hosts and a brisker show.
How many minutes did Ellen spend in the audience? Was it worth it? Would not that time be better spent allowing Steve Martin and Angela Landsbury to accept their awards during the main show? It is really disgraceful that the honorary Oscars are pushed to another ceremony. It is like they do not really count. It certainly makes more sense to show them than the shorts awards.
Interesting how some people had their Ellen narrative written before even watching the show. It was assumed she would be "nice," and yet the Liza joke was way worse than anything Seth MacFarlane did last year. Plus, if you are going to refer to a woman as a man, you had better make sure the joke is funny, rather than a toss off line. Perhaps the worst thing about this year's show were my flashbacks to last year, thinking it was not so bad after all. And for someone who likes to banter with the audience, shouldn't Ellen be better at improvisation and impromptu one liners? Jonah Hill is one of the best at those skills, but she barely involved him. George Clooney's presence would have helped.
The "clips from the past" segments should be eliminated if they cannot come up with better montages than that. It really seems like no thought is put into them at all, except for trying to follow the lose theme that no one cares about. The Wizard of Oz tribute was lame. When the announcement was made about Judy Garland's kids attending, I wondered what they would do or say. It turns out they would do nothing, except be the butt of jokes. I did think that Pink did the best job she possibly could with that song, but she simply did not have the pipes to really do it justice.
Which brings me to those singers who can no longer sing. Bette Midler cannot sing like she used to, so why have her sing anything? That ruined one of the few positives in the show, which is the In Memoriam segment, where they eradicated the applause meter and managed to provide an almost fully updated list of names. Darlene Love...I love her enthusiasm but the singing was excruciatingly bad.
The show has all the makings of something that was thrown together in a week, rather than the months of thought and preparation that (presumably) went into it.
Here is a suggestion: ask Colbert to host the show. Unfortunately, I am guessing that they already did, and he turned down the offer because he realizes the train-wreck nature of the production.
How many minutes did Ellen spend in the audience? Was it worth it? Would not that time be better spent allowing Steve Martin and Angela Landsbury to accept their awards during the main show? It is really disgraceful that the honorary Oscars are pushed to another ceremony. It is like they do not really count. It certainly makes more sense to show them than the shorts awards.
Interesting how some people had their Ellen narrative written before even watching the show. It was assumed she would be "nice," and yet the Liza joke was way worse than anything Seth MacFarlane did last year. Plus, if you are going to refer to a woman as a man, you had better make sure the joke is funny, rather than a toss off line. Perhaps the worst thing about this year's show were my flashbacks to last year, thinking it was not so bad after all. And for someone who likes to banter with the audience, shouldn't Ellen be better at improvisation and impromptu one liners? Jonah Hill is one of the best at those skills, but she barely involved him. George Clooney's presence would have helped.
The "clips from the past" segments should be eliminated if they cannot come up with better montages than that. It really seems like no thought is put into them at all, except for trying to follow the lose theme that no one cares about. The Wizard of Oz tribute was lame. When the announcement was made about Judy Garland's kids attending, I wondered what they would do or say. It turns out they would do nothing, except be the butt of jokes. I did think that Pink did the best job she possibly could with that song, but she simply did not have the pipes to really do it justice.
Which brings me to those singers who can no longer sing. Bette Midler cannot sing like she used to, so why have her sing anything? That ruined one of the few positives in the show, which is the In Memoriam segment, where they eradicated the applause meter and managed to provide an almost fully updated list of names. Darlene Love...I love her enthusiasm but the singing was excruciatingly bad.
The show has all the makings of something that was thrown together in a week, rather than the months of thought and preparation that (presumably) went into it.
Here is a suggestion: ask Colbert to host the show. Unfortunately, I am guessing that they already did, and he turned down the offer because he realizes the train-wreck nature of the production.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Award Inanity
If one is looking for unpredictability, the Academy Awards is not for you. Thanks to earlier guild award results, most results are determinable to a near certainty. Add to that an increasing amount of "chatter" between those who cover the awards race and those who actually vote, and that leaves little room for surprise. They are even able to predict when the guild result will differ from the AA result, such as the winner of the Supporting Actress award. The biggest question mark this year is Best Picture-but only because there was a tie for the PGA award.
Does any of this really matter? Not really. I have learned to pay little heed to the winners, as the Academy membership has all too frequently demonstrated poor taste in movies. One would expect these people to be up on their movies, but that is a fallacy. Their opinions do not stray far from the hoi polloi. Very simplistic with little intelligence on display, these voters are looking for an emotional, moving experience, not a movie that inspires thought and/or controversy. The last thing they want is to be challenged. Sympathetic characters are a must. This has been the common assumption about these voters for a while (and it goes way back-think How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane), and this idea is reinforced by the eight "Brutally Honest Oscar Voter Ballots." This year is even more predictable than usual, if the Gurus o' Gold and Gold Derby results are any indication.
Best Picture-This is the one major category that is a bit of a tossup. On the one hand, Gravity won the DGA, which is considered to be the best predictor. If it had received one more vote for the PGA, everyone would consider it a lock to win Best Picture. But it didn't. The tie vote made people think that 12 Years had at least a chance. And in the last few days the consensus has turned toward 12 Years as the most likely winner. I am leaning toward 12 Years for one reason-a sci-fi film that is heavy in technical achievement but light in storytelling is not the type of movie that screams Best Picture. Then again, movies about African American racial conflict have not had much success at these awards either. Another advantage that Gravity appears to have is that all of the voters will have seen it, while the intensity of the depictions of slavery in 12 Years is said to have turned off some members of the Academy to the point that they would not view the entire film. That is a key point, and Brokeback Mountain faced a similar situation. This explains another potential advantage for Gravity, which is the preferential voting system. It seems like the movie more likely to receive second place votes, as 12 Years is the type of polarizing film that will either be at the top of voters' ranking or towards the bottom. I still have to come back to the subject matter and say that 12 Years feels a lot more like a Best Picture, and it will eke out a victory. Winner-12 Years a Slave
Best Director-Cuaron has this one wrapped up. A split between Director and Best Picture does not happen very often, but the only way it will not happen is if Gravity also wins Best Picture. Winner-Alfonso Cuaron
Best Actor-The Academy loves physical transformations. Winner-Matthew McConaughey
Best Actress-This was the first lock of the season. Nothing has changed. Winner-Cate Blanchett.
Best Supporting Actor-This was another transformation. Plus this category is not considered to be very strong this year. Winner-Jared Leto
Best Supporting Actress-Jennifer Lawrence would have this one locked up, if not for her win last year. That leaves an actress who is also benefiting from those people who want to reward 12 Years a Slave, but who voted for Gravity in the other major categories. Winner-Lupita Nyong'o. By the way, these four winners have to be the most difficult group of names to spell in the history of the awards. Even Jared Leto is difficult, when you consider how many ways there are to spell "Jared." One last thing-if the blue-hairs have their way, this might go with under-the-radar June Squibb.
Best Original Screenplay-Her has a chance here, but I find it difficult to believe that American Hustle will be shutout. Winner-American Hustle
Best Adapted Screenplay-Academy members have too short of an attention span for movies like the Before trilogy. Winner-12 Years a Slave
Best Feature Documentary-20 Feet From Stardom is the favorite, but its subject matter feels too slight, so I believe it will be upset by either The Act of Killing or The Square. Winner-The Square
Best Foreign Language Film-Going with the film that has been a big winner elsewhere. Winner-The Great Beauty
Best Animated Feature-They should eliminate this category now that Pixar has gone south. Winner-Frozen
Best Cinematography-Get ready for lots of technical wins by one film. Winner-Gravity
Best Costume Design-I can imagine some people being annoyed by the clothing in American Hustle. Winner-The Great Gatsby
Best Film Editing-This category often does not match with a weak Best Picture winner. This is also a chance to award a film that might not win anything else. Winner-Captain Phillips
Best Production Design-If this film is going to win one award, this is it. Winner-The Great Gatsby
Best Make-Up-I think it is safe to assume that most voters failed to watch that Jackass nominee, even if it deserves to win, which some make-up experts believe to be the case. Winner-Dallas Buyers Club
Best Score-One of the nominees leaned on the score more than any other. Winner-Gravity
Best Song-This is another category that should be eliminated. Winner-Let It Go
Best Sound Mixing-Winner-Gravity
Best Sound Editing-Winner-Gravity
Best Visual Effects-Winner-Gravity
Best Documentary Short-These last three categories are always a crapshoot. Even the so-called experts are usually stymied here. Pick two out of three of these correctly and you have a very good chance of winning your Oscar pool. That being said, I read something about a change in policy on these, as now dvd screeners are sent out, meaning that the potential pool of voters becomes larger, and thus maybe a little easier to predict. I still think that more than half of the eligible voters abstain from voting in these categories. In this particular category, everyone seems to be predicting the same winner. I still will not be surprised to see something else win. Winner-The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life
Best Live Action Short-Winner-Helium
Best Animated Short-Winner-Get a Horse!
Does any of this really matter? Not really. I have learned to pay little heed to the winners, as the Academy membership has all too frequently demonstrated poor taste in movies. One would expect these people to be up on their movies, but that is a fallacy. Their opinions do not stray far from the hoi polloi. Very simplistic with little intelligence on display, these voters are looking for an emotional, moving experience, not a movie that inspires thought and/or controversy. The last thing they want is to be challenged. Sympathetic characters are a must. This has been the common assumption about these voters for a while (and it goes way back-think How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane), and this idea is reinforced by the eight "Brutally Honest Oscar Voter Ballots." This year is even more predictable than usual, if the Gurus o' Gold and Gold Derby results are any indication.
Best Picture-This is the one major category that is a bit of a tossup. On the one hand, Gravity won the DGA, which is considered to be the best predictor. If it had received one more vote for the PGA, everyone would consider it a lock to win Best Picture. But it didn't. The tie vote made people think that 12 Years had at least a chance. And in the last few days the consensus has turned toward 12 Years as the most likely winner. I am leaning toward 12 Years for one reason-a sci-fi film that is heavy in technical achievement but light in storytelling is not the type of movie that screams Best Picture. Then again, movies about African American racial conflict have not had much success at these awards either. Another advantage that Gravity appears to have is that all of the voters will have seen it, while the intensity of the depictions of slavery in 12 Years is said to have turned off some members of the Academy to the point that they would not view the entire film. That is a key point, and Brokeback Mountain faced a similar situation. This explains another potential advantage for Gravity, which is the preferential voting system. It seems like the movie more likely to receive second place votes, as 12 Years is the type of polarizing film that will either be at the top of voters' ranking or towards the bottom. I still have to come back to the subject matter and say that 12 Years feels a lot more like a Best Picture, and it will eke out a victory. Winner-12 Years a Slave
Best Director-Cuaron has this one wrapped up. A split between Director and Best Picture does not happen very often, but the only way it will not happen is if Gravity also wins Best Picture. Winner-Alfonso Cuaron
Best Actor-The Academy loves physical transformations. Winner-Matthew McConaughey
Best Actress-This was the first lock of the season. Nothing has changed. Winner-Cate Blanchett.
Best Supporting Actor-This was another transformation. Plus this category is not considered to be very strong this year. Winner-Jared Leto
Best Supporting Actress-Jennifer Lawrence would have this one locked up, if not for her win last year. That leaves an actress who is also benefiting from those people who want to reward 12 Years a Slave, but who voted for Gravity in the other major categories. Winner-Lupita Nyong'o. By the way, these four winners have to be the most difficult group of names to spell in the history of the awards. Even Jared Leto is difficult, when you consider how many ways there are to spell "Jared." One last thing-if the blue-hairs have their way, this might go with under-the-radar June Squibb.
Best Original Screenplay-Her has a chance here, but I find it difficult to believe that American Hustle will be shutout. Winner-American Hustle
Best Adapted Screenplay-Academy members have too short of an attention span for movies like the Before trilogy. Winner-12 Years a Slave
Best Feature Documentary-20 Feet From Stardom is the favorite, but its subject matter feels too slight, so I believe it will be upset by either The Act of Killing or The Square. Winner-The Square
Best Foreign Language Film-Going with the film that has been a big winner elsewhere. Winner-The Great Beauty
Best Animated Feature-They should eliminate this category now that Pixar has gone south. Winner-Frozen
Best Cinematography-Get ready for lots of technical wins by one film. Winner-Gravity
Best Costume Design-I can imagine some people being annoyed by the clothing in American Hustle. Winner-The Great Gatsby
Best Film Editing-This category often does not match with a weak Best Picture winner. This is also a chance to award a film that might not win anything else. Winner-Captain Phillips
Best Production Design-If this film is going to win one award, this is it. Winner-The Great Gatsby
Best Make-Up-I think it is safe to assume that most voters failed to watch that Jackass nominee, even if it deserves to win, which some make-up experts believe to be the case. Winner-Dallas Buyers Club
Best Score-One of the nominees leaned on the score more than any other. Winner-Gravity
Best Song-This is another category that should be eliminated. Winner-Let It Go
Best Sound Mixing-Winner-Gravity
Best Sound Editing-Winner-Gravity
Best Visual Effects-Winner-Gravity
Best Documentary Short-These last three categories are always a crapshoot. Even the so-called experts are usually stymied here. Pick two out of three of these correctly and you have a very good chance of winning your Oscar pool. That being said, I read something about a change in policy on these, as now dvd screeners are sent out, meaning that the potential pool of voters becomes larger, and thus maybe a little easier to predict. I still think that more than half of the eligible voters abstain from voting in these categories. In this particular category, everyone seems to be predicting the same winner. I still will not be surprised to see something else win. Winner-The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life
Best Live Action Short-Winner-Helium
Best Animated Short-Winner-Get a Horse!
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Lose, Lose, or Lose?
The Comcast-Netflix deal sent a shockwave through every corner of the Internet today. A lot of people fear the worst. I do not, but that is only because I do not know what to believe at this early stage. Almost everyone seems to believe that this is not going to be good for the consumer over the long term, and that will probably be the case without swift action (meaning, the ball better be rolling within 18 months) by the government to curb the powers of ISPs in what is rapidly becoming a small oligopoly. This is gonna be a big folks, and it is shaping up to be one of the top five issues of 2016. People are fed up with these cable companies, and it is not going to go over very well when the same companies start raising rates and nickel and diming for ISP service. Or when people find out that other services are going up in price due to the actions of these leviathans.
Key questions-
1. Will this hurt the chances for the Comcast/Time Warner merger to be approved?
2. Is this really a violation of net neutrality?
3. Why did Netflix do this? Did they have an ulterior motive that has yet to come to the fore?
4. Will the government do anything?
The two best articles as of this moment-
Key questions-
1. Will this hurt the chances for the Comcast/Time Warner merger to be approved?
2. Is this really a violation of net neutrality?
3. Why did Netflix do this? Did they have an ulterior motive that has yet to come to the fore?
4. Will the government do anything?
The two best articles as of this moment-
Comcast’s deal with Netflix makes network neutrality obsolete
Comcast and Netflix Reach Deal on Service
Misery 101
Did they really need to take the time and effort to conduct a study of what we already knew? Those in power love the uneducated, because all they have to do is trumpet guns, religion, xenophobia, and football to be elected. Common sense, logic, and philanthropy are eschewed in favor of "independence," superstition, and intolerance. Good luck with that.
Disaster Film
Marvel has a history of employing veteran filmmakers for its movie projects-Kenneth Branagh, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston. That streak has come to an end. Either their list of veteran filmmakers willing to work on a comic book franchise has run out, or they are making a conscious decision to go with lesser names for some reason. A lesser name does not necessarily mean a lesser talent, but does anyone really think that Marvel is going to discover someone?
James Gunn, not to be confused with Jame Gumb, is best known for once being married to Jenna Fischer. Despite several years in the industry, his best known projects are screenplays for the two Scooby-Doo movies and the Dawn of the Dead remake. So it is not very encouraging that he is the writer/director of the Guardians of the Galaxy movie.
The trailer makes it clear that Guardians is going for a humorous, if not outright comedic, tone. From a movie quality standpoint this could be a disaster. I do not think it will be a disaster at the box office because Marvel has built up too much goodwill with its movie successes. So it will have a good opening. But the fact that Marvel is releasing it in August shows that they do not have a lot of confidence it it long term performance. Big budget movies released in August are generally the worst of the worst.
I cannot help but think that this movie could have used Ghostbusters era Bill Murray as Star Lord. Rewatch the trailer, and just imagine Bill Murray's signature delivery with those lines.
Another issue with this film is that nobody, and I do mean nobody, knows who the Guardians of the Galaxy are. I was a big reader of Marvel Comics back in the 80s, and I have no memory of them. Even while collecting back issues I have barely become aware of them, as they had no regular series until the 1990s, when Marvel Comics was going down the tubes. It was more than a little surprising when Marvel announced this movie. Then again, Marvel is also doing a movie using the Ant-Man character, though at least that one has Edgar Wright at the helm.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Retired at 22
I suspect that anyone born after 1980 barely recognizes the name Shirley Temple. My exposure to Shirley Temple was the result of a local channel playing her movies on occasion. Every Sunday at 9:30 A.M. this station would play either an Abbott and Costello or Shirley Temple movie, mostly A&C. Unsurprisingly, I was always disappointed when a Temple movie was shown (though I was more disappointed to have to go to church). The average ten year old boy is not going to find much to like in a curly haired little girl singing about the Good Ship Lollipop.
I watched those Abbott and Costello movies over and over, but I remember very little about the Shirley Temple movies. Either they did not make much of an impression on me, or I found something else to do. All I really remember is Shirley dancing up the stairs with Bill Robinson. And one other movie which stood out from all the others-The Blue Bird. This almost psychedelic film featured actors in a dog and a cat costume. There was also a forest fire, which had to be disturbing for little kids. This was one of the last films Temple starred in before the onset of puberty. I need to revisit this film sometime, as it did make an impression on me.
Temple would retire at the age of 22 after a few years of trying to find a place for the grown up version of herself. Before retiring she was in a few notable films, like Fort Apache and The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer. I watched both films back in the 90s but remember little, except that Shirley Temple grew up into a very striking woman. So if she was "beautiful" enough for Hollywood, why did she retire at such a young age? Was she burnt out? Was she a lousy actress? Certainly marrying a rich husband helped her to not be dependent on working, after her parents squandered most of her fortune. It is also curious that she married a conservative, and even ran for Congress as a Republican candidate. A lot of questions, and few answers since I have not read her autobiography yet. It is sitting on my bookshelf, and I would have started reading it except I really need to have a fresher perspective on her films before reading about her life.
So passes one of the last stars of the 1930s. Few remain.
Meet the future
The idea of reading a book on an "ebook reader" has appealed to me since the late 90s, when e-books first showed up. Unfortunately portable technology for reading the e-books was years away. The Kindle (2007, $399 yikes!) was a step in the right direction. Good battery life, lightweight, and the ability to read in bright sunlight were three of its strong suites. The problem is that, like a regular book, it required a good amount of exterior light to minimize eye strain, and even then it was not particularly bright. The price was outrageous, and it is hard to believe how much the price has dropped on these things, with the iPad (2010) being the catalyst to improve what one could buy for several hundred dollars.
The Kindle Fire ($199, 2011) tablet, not to mention the other tablets in the tablet craze that began with the release of the iPad, was another way to read ebooks, but I quickly abandoned it due to several problems. First, the glass makes it too heavy. Second, and more damning, the glass results in a lot of glare, making it difficult to read outdoors and in lighting conditions not under your control. Third, the Fire is plenty bright, sometimes too bright. That brightness can lead to eye strain, particularly in dim lighting conditions.
In 2012 Kindle released the Paperwhite. This is a breakthrough in e-reading. It addresses all three problems that I had with the Fire. It does not have the heavy glass, so it is very light. The surface has practically no problem with glare. The screen, at the highest setting, is very bright and is just about perfect for reading in a well lit room or in bright sunlight outside. I wrote "setting" because the Paperwhite allows you to change how much the screen is lit. I use the highest setting for outdoors, a middle setting for indoors, and a low setting for a dark room/complete darkness. While it is possible to read in complete darkness, it is not preferable due to eye strain even at the lowest setting. That said, I still read in the dark a lot, right before falling asleep. Keep in mind that I have had Lasik, so my eyes might be a little more sensitive to light than the average person. Another thing to note is that I have a first generation Paperwhite. The second generation Paperwhite is advertised with higher contrast, so it might be a little better in low light conditions.
There are a few drawbacks to the Paperwhite. Many people have reported uneven lighting on their Paperwhite. Usually this is limited to the very bottom of the screen, meaning that it is still perfectly readable, but the lighting is not perfectly uniform. I have a "perfect" Paperwhite, but it is really the luck of the draw. Maybe Amazon has had more luck in the manufacturing process with its second generation Paperwhite.
I would like a larger Paperwhite. A 7" version would be just about perfect. Right now I find myself wishing for larger font, but when I increase the font size, the words per line decrease too much. This is one of the few advantage the Fire has over the Paperwhite.
Another aspect that could be improved is the built-in software/firmware, which could stand to be overhauled to make navigation between books easier. Not that is is difficult, but I would like something more user friendly, e.g. Apple-esque.
While I would prefer buttons on the side of the Paperwhite to turn pages, using the touchscreen is works good enough, with room for improvement. I have read that the touch interface is improved for the second generation.
If you have a lot of e-books, you really need to download a library software like Calibre to your computer. It makes conversion and transfer very simple, and of course it sensibly organizes your collection.
At this point, I would recommend waiting for the third generation Paperwhite, which should be released in the fourth quarter 2014 at the latest.
Update-This article does a decent job summarizing most of what I wrote previously.
The Kindle Fire ($199, 2011) tablet, not to mention the other tablets in the tablet craze that began with the release of the iPad, was another way to read ebooks, but I quickly abandoned it due to several problems. First, the glass makes it too heavy. Second, and more damning, the glass results in a lot of glare, making it difficult to read outdoors and in lighting conditions not under your control. Third, the Fire is plenty bright, sometimes too bright. That brightness can lead to eye strain, particularly in dim lighting conditions.
In 2012 Kindle released the Paperwhite. This is a breakthrough in e-reading. It addresses all three problems that I had with the Fire. It does not have the heavy glass, so it is very light. The surface has practically no problem with glare. The screen, at the highest setting, is very bright and is just about perfect for reading in a well lit room or in bright sunlight outside. I wrote "setting" because the Paperwhite allows you to change how much the screen is lit. I use the highest setting for outdoors, a middle setting for indoors, and a low setting for a dark room/complete darkness. While it is possible to read in complete darkness, it is not preferable due to eye strain even at the lowest setting. That said, I still read in the dark a lot, right before falling asleep. Keep in mind that I have had Lasik, so my eyes might be a little more sensitive to light than the average person. Another thing to note is that I have a first generation Paperwhite. The second generation Paperwhite is advertised with higher contrast, so it might be a little better in low light conditions.
There are a few drawbacks to the Paperwhite. Many people have reported uneven lighting on their Paperwhite. Usually this is limited to the very bottom of the screen, meaning that it is still perfectly readable, but the lighting is not perfectly uniform. I have a "perfect" Paperwhite, but it is really the luck of the draw. Maybe Amazon has had more luck in the manufacturing process with its second generation Paperwhite.
I would like a larger Paperwhite. A 7" version would be just about perfect. Right now I find myself wishing for larger font, but when I increase the font size, the words per line decrease too much. This is one of the few advantage the Fire has over the Paperwhite.
Another aspect that could be improved is the built-in software/firmware, which could stand to be overhauled to make navigation between books easier. Not that is is difficult, but I would like something more user friendly, e.g. Apple-esque.
While I would prefer buttons on the side of the Paperwhite to turn pages, using the touchscreen is works good enough, with room for improvement. I have read that the touch interface is improved for the second generation.
If you have a lot of e-books, you really need to download a library software like Calibre to your computer. It makes conversion and transfer very simple, and of course it sensibly organizes your collection.
At this point, I would recommend waiting for the third generation Paperwhite, which should be released in the fourth quarter 2014 at the latest.
Update-This article does a decent job summarizing most of what I wrote previously.
Enablers
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
The book is really a biography of Hitler, who was the person most critical to the rise and fall. This is one of the things that is stunning about Hitler's life-he was the lynchpin for the continued success of the Nazis, and yet few opposed him once he gained power.
What is truly frustrating about the book is how EASY it was for Hitler to rise to power and obtain what he wanted for the next several years. Sure, the Beer Hall Putsch failed, and it was several years before Hitler would obtain "Fuhror" status. But the Putsch was a ridiculous attempt to overthrow the government. Hitler was punished for his treason with an incredibly light sentence that ended up being a few months of home confinement. Hitler smartly used the "down" time to write Mein Kamph. Which brings me to another point that Shirer brought up again and again-Hitler spelled out his true feelings and radicalism in Mein Kamph. It should have been no surprise what he would do to the Jews, nor was it out of character for him to take an imperialist, expansionist stance toward Europe.
The Allies made mistake after mistake in their handling of Hitler and Germany. They underestimated the extremists views of the Nazis, despite plenty of prior warning. If the regime would be so severe to its own people (concentration camps were already numerous in the mid 1930s, thanks to the incarceration of political enemies and "undesirables") then what stance would it take towards its neighbors? Even after war had been officially declared, the Allies sat on their hands and let Poland try to defend itself. England had by far the strongest navy, and yet Germany was allowed to float into Norway, where most of the resistance came from the somewhat disorganized Norwegian resistance. While the German army was focused on Poland, western Germany was at the mercy of French and English "invading" forces, which sat still, waiting to go on the defensive. Months later Germany was ready to head west. The Netherlands and Belgium also neglected the threat, assuming Germany would not invade France by way of those Northern countries. Then there was France, whose lackadaisical response was made worse by poor tactical decisions. Mistakes continued to be made by the Allies throughout the war, but they would benefit from Germany's dwindling supplies and the massive miscalculations by Hitler regarding the possibility of conquering Russia.
A long war was unwinnable by Germany, and by 1943 Germany was doomed. But Hitler was embarking on a "lose at all cost" path while spreading blame around. His belief that the German people were superior in mind and body to their enemies made it inconceivable (I don't think you know the meaning of that word) to Hitler that Germany could be defeated. During the last few months Hitler ordered a scorched earth policy towards Germany itself. Fortunately for Germany, some Germans finally started to ignore Hitler's orders. Too little, too late for many.
Nationalism is dangerous. Patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels. People value money over freedom. People are gullible. These are recurring themes of the rise, and I could not help but think about the United States and the rise of nationalistic fervor in the time following 9/11. Hitler was convinced that he needed to justify his actions, whether those actions involved punishing groups of people for their race or political beliefs, lessening freedom in the homeland to strengthen his control, or invading other nations. Hitler's early support was never very strong. He never obtained over 50% of the vote in any election, until already in power when elections were managed to the appropriate (for Hitler) results. They were managed so well that Hitler received almost unanimous approval. Right.
How was the government dysfunctional to the point that Hitler was allowed to assume power to begin with? There was too much division. There were several parties and factions. They could not come together and agree on important issues, which left the government impotent during an economic crisis. Sound familiar?
Hitler's actions became more and more extreme. More and more people were being condemned to concentration camps (especially former supporters who did not fit the plan), Jews were being eradicated from public life, and countries were being invaded to ensure Germany's safety. At some point one would think that the German people would come to their senses. But years of "success" had made them feel righteous about the 1930s government, and some wanted to believe Hitler's "truth" rather than reality, to placate their own egos. Of course, Hitler's truth was whatever he wanted them to believe.
I would rather not break down people by race or nationality. I prefer to say that everyone is an Earthling. This "one people, one planet" idea has become more and more sensible with the increasing contact between Earthlings thanks to the Internet. The spread of knowledge, ideas, and values without the interference of a particular politicial regime is paving the way towards a worldcentric way of life. So when I look back and see how foolish the German majority was during this time, I see it as a warning. Yes, people are that stupid and shortsighted. Whenever things are going poorly, they will grasp on to whatever seems to work, regardless of the long term consequences. Find someone to blame, and hype yourself up in the process.
It might look ugly now, but Hitler tapped into primordial urges while taking advantage of economic upheaval and local impoverishment. Evil was at the right place at the right time.
The book is really a biography of Hitler, who was the person most critical to the rise and fall. This is one of the things that is stunning about Hitler's life-he was the lynchpin for the continued success of the Nazis, and yet few opposed him once he gained power.
What is truly frustrating about the book is how EASY it was for Hitler to rise to power and obtain what he wanted for the next several years. Sure, the Beer Hall Putsch failed, and it was several years before Hitler would obtain "Fuhror" status. But the Putsch was a ridiculous attempt to overthrow the government. Hitler was punished for his treason with an incredibly light sentence that ended up being a few months of home confinement. Hitler smartly used the "down" time to write Mein Kamph. Which brings me to another point that Shirer brought up again and again-Hitler spelled out his true feelings and radicalism in Mein Kamph. It should have been no surprise what he would do to the Jews, nor was it out of character for him to take an imperialist, expansionist stance toward Europe.
The Allies made mistake after mistake in their handling of Hitler and Germany. They underestimated the extremists views of the Nazis, despite plenty of prior warning. If the regime would be so severe to its own people (concentration camps were already numerous in the mid 1930s, thanks to the incarceration of political enemies and "undesirables") then what stance would it take towards its neighbors? Even after war had been officially declared, the Allies sat on their hands and let Poland try to defend itself. England had by far the strongest navy, and yet Germany was allowed to float into Norway, where most of the resistance came from the somewhat disorganized Norwegian resistance. While the German army was focused on Poland, western Germany was at the mercy of French and English "invading" forces, which sat still, waiting to go on the defensive. Months later Germany was ready to head west. The Netherlands and Belgium also neglected the threat, assuming Germany would not invade France by way of those Northern countries. Then there was France, whose lackadaisical response was made worse by poor tactical decisions. Mistakes continued to be made by the Allies throughout the war, but they would benefit from Germany's dwindling supplies and the massive miscalculations by Hitler regarding the possibility of conquering Russia.
A long war was unwinnable by Germany, and by 1943 Germany was doomed. But Hitler was embarking on a "lose at all cost" path while spreading blame around. His belief that the German people were superior in mind and body to their enemies made it inconceivable (I don't think you know the meaning of that word) to Hitler that Germany could be defeated. During the last few months Hitler ordered a scorched earth policy towards Germany itself. Fortunately for Germany, some Germans finally started to ignore Hitler's orders. Too little, too late for many.
Nationalism is dangerous. Patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels. People value money over freedom. People are gullible. These are recurring themes of the rise, and I could not help but think about the United States and the rise of nationalistic fervor in the time following 9/11. Hitler was convinced that he needed to justify his actions, whether those actions involved punishing groups of people for their race or political beliefs, lessening freedom in the homeland to strengthen his control, or invading other nations. Hitler's early support was never very strong. He never obtained over 50% of the vote in any election, until already in power when elections were managed to the appropriate (for Hitler) results. They were managed so well that Hitler received almost unanimous approval. Right.
How was the government dysfunctional to the point that Hitler was allowed to assume power to begin with? There was too much division. There were several parties and factions. They could not come together and agree on important issues, which left the government impotent during an economic crisis. Sound familiar?
Hitler's actions became more and more extreme. More and more people were being condemned to concentration camps (especially former supporters who did not fit the plan), Jews were being eradicated from public life, and countries were being invaded to ensure Germany's safety. At some point one would think that the German people would come to their senses. But years of "success" had made them feel righteous about the 1930s government, and some wanted to believe Hitler's "truth" rather than reality, to placate their own egos. Of course, Hitler's truth was whatever he wanted them to believe.
I would rather not break down people by race or nationality. I prefer to say that everyone is an Earthling. This "one people, one planet" idea has become more and more sensible with the increasing contact between Earthlings thanks to the Internet. The spread of knowledge, ideas, and values without the interference of a particular politicial regime is paving the way towards a worldcentric way of life. So when I look back and see how foolish the German majority was during this time, I see it as a warning. Yes, people are that stupid and shortsighted. Whenever things are going poorly, they will grasp on to whatever seems to work, regardless of the long term consequences. Find someone to blame, and hype yourself up in the process.
It might look ugly now, but Hitler tapped into primordial urges while taking advantage of economic upheaval and local impoverishment. Evil was at the right place at the right time.
If At First You Don't Succeed, Try, Try, Try, and Try Again
The standards for restaurant cleanliness is shockingly low. I wonder if the average restaurant-goer is aware of this. And who constructs such lax rules in the first place? It appears that foreign food restaurants are particularly abysmal in their ratings. A local newspaper lists those restaurants that fail inspections. A score below 36 (out of 100) causes the restaurant too temporarily shut down? until another inspection a couple days later. A score below 0! results in automatic closure. A score below 36 for the reinspection also results in closure. Among the violations:
1. raw chicken out of safe temperature ranges and homemade yogurt out of temperature ranges. The facility is not licensed to make their own yogurt or milk products.
2. a live baby German roach seen on the wall above the hand sink and employees not washing hands.
3. ice machine with an "overly excessive amount of mold"; ready-to-eat food not dated with several foods months past expiration date; raw meat thawing in one compartment of a three-compartment sink, which also held dishes
4. bottles of bleach stored on a food prep counter
5. Cool Whip found molded and open containers of sour cream, milk and deli meat not dated.
6. dirty water splashing into bowls used for food.
7. an employee moving a trash bin with hands and then putting on gloves as well as adjusting his clothes, scratching his head and then handling food
This really lends credulity to those Gordon Ramsey Kitchen Nightmares inspections. The good news? The Health District board approved the proposal and will require city restaurants to post a color-coded placard starting in January. This was only after the county board inexplicably voted down such a proposal. I wonder if any of those county board members own a restaurant.
1. raw chicken out of safe temperature ranges and homemade yogurt out of temperature ranges. The facility is not licensed to make their own yogurt or milk products.
2. a live baby German roach seen on the wall above the hand sink and employees not washing hands.
3. ice machine with an "overly excessive amount of mold"; ready-to-eat food not dated with several foods months past expiration date; raw meat thawing in one compartment of a three-compartment sink, which also held dishes
4. bottles of bleach stored on a food prep counter
5. Cool Whip found molded and open containers of sour cream, milk and deli meat not dated.
6. dirty water splashing into bowls used for food.
7. an employee moving a trash bin with hands and then putting on gloves as well as adjusting his clothes, scratching his head and then handling food
This really lends credulity to those Gordon Ramsey Kitchen Nightmares inspections. The good news? The Health District board approved the proposal and will require city restaurants to post a color-coded placard starting in January. This was only after the county board inexplicably voted down such a proposal. I wonder if any of those county board members own a restaurant.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Close Encounters
Francois Truffaut was mentioned on two different sitcoms this week. Odd. No prize if you can name them. Even more coincidental, Truffaut would have turned 82 today had a brain tumor not interceded thirty years ago.
You Will Meet a Short, Nebbish Creep
It has not been a slow news week. So I do not know the reason for the recent Woody Allen coverage. The same accusations were leveled 22 years ago. So what is the "new"s here? Nothing has changed. Woody Allen is a creep. This is nothing new either. Watch Manhattan again. Allen obviously puts a lot of himself into his movies. If Allen was nice and normal and, well, boring, he probably would not have produced one of the most voluminous and creative oeuvres in the history of the arts. Anyone who has spent some time in family court would realize that wild, perhaps false, accusations are typical, and these wounds never heal. It also took Farrow 12 years to figure out the "real" Woody Allen. Kids are also easy to brainwash, which is why religion tries to start them early on the "right" path.
Some say this has the potential to cost Cate Blanchett the win for Best Actress. Ludicrous. The Academy voters are (mostly) the same ones who rewarded Roman Polanski a few years ago. In this case, the "villain" would not be receiving the award. In addition there is not a strong second choice, as Blanchett has pretty much swept the awards season.
Some say this has the potential to cost Cate Blanchett the win for Best Actress. Ludicrous. The Academy voters are (mostly) the same ones who rewarded Roman Polanski a few years ago. In this case, the "villain" would not be receiving the award. In addition there is not a strong second choice, as Blanchett has pretty much swept the awards season.
Amazing Amy
Gone Girl
Spoilers, obviously. Your enjoyment of the book (or upcoming movie) will be significantly lessened if you continue to read.
Gone Girl has a problem. The protagonist is not likeable. That is not necessarily a problem for me, but I could understand others finding little to care about. The mystery propels the story along, as Flynn (Amy) sets up Nick for the fall. At one point I wondered when Nick would kill a puppy, because that is about the only thing he does not do. Lying, cheating, physical abuse...it is all there in the prototype for a bad husband.
At about the halfway point the story takes a turn. There is also a reversal in characterization. I suspect that Flynn wrote the beginning and end of the novel first, then tried to construct a middle to fit. We are told how meticulous Amy is, but then as soon as we are introduced to "real time" Amy, she turns stupid. All she has to do is hide out for a few weeks, appearing in public as little as possible. Instead she decides to lay out by the pool each day and try to make new friends. Odd. Then she changes her mind and decides not to kill herself, in the process abandoning a plan that was over a year in the making.
One of the misdirects in the first half of the book involves the idea that Amy could not have been involved in her own disappearance due to 1. no missing money and 2. the blood in the kitchen. Amy later explains that she was able to quietly accumulate ten thousand dollars by withdrawing small sums. Ok, but ten thousand is not very much to live on for very long, especially without any form of identification. The planned suicide explained this, but it reads more like Flynn could not come up with a better way to explain this difficulty. It is hard to believe that someone as egotistical and resourceful as Amy would kill herself.
We are never told how Amy planned to make money. Is it possible that she always had Desi in the back of her mind? Maybe. But we are let into Amy's mind, and Desi is never mentioned until after the robbery. Speaking of the robbery, this is another slip-up by Amy. It is almost as if she is trying to blow her cover. She knew that Greta has seen her cash. Right then and there she should have fled. Instead she hangs around, indicating that the "real" Amy is a trusting soul--or incredibly naive. This whole in-congruent stretch contains "stupid" Amy, and it was at this point that I began to wonder if I could finish the book. Things change. After the casino, no more stupid Amy.
As the story was reaching its conclusion, I became concerned that it would not end the "right" way. By saying "right" I am not referring to good triumphing over evil. I just want a logical conclusion. Flynn's ending is perfect in that regard.
Flynn is not the first person to reveal a mentally unstable character who this the child of two psychologists. This was also a prominent plot line in Six Feet Under.
Spoilers, obviously. Your enjoyment of the book (or upcoming movie) will be significantly lessened if you continue to read.
Gone Girl has a problem. The protagonist is not likeable. That is not necessarily a problem for me, but I could understand others finding little to care about. The mystery propels the story along, as Flynn (Amy) sets up Nick for the fall. At one point I wondered when Nick would kill a puppy, because that is about the only thing he does not do. Lying, cheating, physical abuse...it is all there in the prototype for a bad husband.
At about the halfway point the story takes a turn. There is also a reversal in characterization. I suspect that Flynn wrote the beginning and end of the novel first, then tried to construct a middle to fit. We are told how meticulous Amy is, but then as soon as we are introduced to "real time" Amy, she turns stupid. All she has to do is hide out for a few weeks, appearing in public as little as possible. Instead she decides to lay out by the pool each day and try to make new friends. Odd. Then she changes her mind and decides not to kill herself, in the process abandoning a plan that was over a year in the making.
One of the misdirects in the first half of the book involves the idea that Amy could not have been involved in her own disappearance due to 1. no missing money and 2. the blood in the kitchen. Amy later explains that she was able to quietly accumulate ten thousand dollars by withdrawing small sums. Ok, but ten thousand is not very much to live on for very long, especially without any form of identification. The planned suicide explained this, but it reads more like Flynn could not come up with a better way to explain this difficulty. It is hard to believe that someone as egotistical and resourceful as Amy would kill herself.
We are never told how Amy planned to make money. Is it possible that she always had Desi in the back of her mind? Maybe. But we are let into Amy's mind, and Desi is never mentioned until after the robbery. Speaking of the robbery, this is another slip-up by Amy. It is almost as if she is trying to blow her cover. She knew that Greta has seen her cash. Right then and there she should have fled. Instead she hangs around, indicating that the "real" Amy is a trusting soul--or incredibly naive. This whole in-congruent stretch contains "stupid" Amy, and it was at this point that I began to wonder if I could finish the book. Things change. After the casino, no more stupid Amy.
As the story was reaching its conclusion, I became concerned that it would not end the "right" way. By saying "right" I am not referring to good triumphing over evil. I just want a logical conclusion. Flynn's ending is perfect in that regard.
Flynn is not the first person to reveal a mentally unstable character who this the child of two psychologists. This was also a prominent plot line in Six Feet Under.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Blue and Orange
I follow two sports teams. Both are currently plagued by an unreasonable segment of the fanbase. Patience is a virtue possessed by an alarmingly small percentage of people if these fans are any indication. The Cubs have been in rebuild mode ever since Theo Epstein took over. A proper rebuild of an organization with a poor farm system and a major league team with few assets is always going to take time. The idea is that the farm system starts producing, and then you can sign a few free agents to fill in the weak spots in your lineup. The holdup is the time it takes for the farm system to develop longtime major leaguers. Three years for them to start trickling in, with a steady flow by the fifth year. This timeline means that it probably will not be until the fourth year (2015) before the team has a winning record, and 2016 before it is a legitimate playoff contender. How hard is that to understand? Some people apparently believe that this is the wrong way to build a contender. These people never have an answer for what is the right way. The Yankees, whose farm system has not been very productive lately, have had one championship in the last thirteen years, despite far outspending every other team.
Tanaka would have been an interesting signing, but the price might have been too high. There are three issues with Tanaka. First, no one knows how effective he will be against MLB pitching. Second, can he remain healthy? He has thrown a considerable number of pitches in the Japanese league. His young age made him very attractive to many teams like the Cubs, but the mileage on his arm might quickly start to take its toll. Another factor in his health is the forkball pitch. Very few forkball pitchers are able to stay healthy for very long. He might not throw it near as much as Hideo Nomo, but if he is throwing 30-40 a game that could still be very hard on his arm. The third issue is the length of the contract. Seven years is a long time to rely on a pitcher to be healthy. The last few years of that contract could be an albatross to the Yankees. Even worse, if Tanaka does pitch very well and stays healthy, he can opt out after four years. If he is bad, the Yankees are stuck with him for another three years. Maybe by then they will be done paying Arod. I know that Epstein has a policy against "no trade clauses." I wonder if he also has a policy against player "opt out clauses," which seems to me is worse for the team than the no trade clause.
Illinois' basketball team has been in rebuild mode for a season and a half, and already people are bemoaning the lack of success on the court. This year's team consists of three Weber players, two transfers, and five freshmen. Three other transfers are sitting out this year. Considering the lack of recruiting time Groce had for that first recruiting class, he did quite well considering at least three of those freshmen have already shown themselves to be legitimate Big Ten players. Recruiting success can only be judged over a period of years. Only a few programs "recruit themselves," meaning the school attracts the biggest recruits regardless of the coach. Illinois is not one of those schools.
Another problem with the program is that early season success leads to raised expectations for the Big Ten Season. For whatever reason, Illinois has had a tough time with the Big Ten schedule over the last few years. The most popular theory is that the Weber's players are not physically or mentally capable of competing in the physical Big Ten, where sometimes talent is overwhelmed by a will to win. That might apply to this year's team. But I would stress three big reasons why the team has struggled lately. First, Ravonte Rice has been slowed due to an issue with his groin. Since he relies on driving to the basket for the vast majority of his points, obviously his production has fallen. Second, this team really needs a point guard or two. Third, this is a dreadful shooting team. The best shooters are the freshman and the transfers who cannot play this year.
The good news? The 2014-15 team only loses one player, the erratic Bertrand, and gains a couple more freshman, along with those three transfers I previously referred to. That being said, it might not be until the following year before it will be possible to judge Groce, as that will be the first team without any Weber players.
Tanaka would have been an interesting signing, but the price might have been too high. There are three issues with Tanaka. First, no one knows how effective he will be against MLB pitching. Second, can he remain healthy? He has thrown a considerable number of pitches in the Japanese league. His young age made him very attractive to many teams like the Cubs, but the mileage on his arm might quickly start to take its toll. Another factor in his health is the forkball pitch. Very few forkball pitchers are able to stay healthy for very long. He might not throw it near as much as Hideo Nomo, but if he is throwing 30-40 a game that could still be very hard on his arm. The third issue is the length of the contract. Seven years is a long time to rely on a pitcher to be healthy. The last few years of that contract could be an albatross to the Yankees. Even worse, if Tanaka does pitch very well and stays healthy, he can opt out after four years. If he is bad, the Yankees are stuck with him for another three years. Maybe by then they will be done paying Arod. I know that Epstein has a policy against "no trade clauses." I wonder if he also has a policy against player "opt out clauses," which seems to me is worse for the team than the no trade clause.
Illinois' basketball team has been in rebuild mode for a season and a half, and already people are bemoaning the lack of success on the court. This year's team consists of three Weber players, two transfers, and five freshmen. Three other transfers are sitting out this year. Considering the lack of recruiting time Groce had for that first recruiting class, he did quite well considering at least three of those freshmen have already shown themselves to be legitimate Big Ten players. Recruiting success can only be judged over a period of years. Only a few programs "recruit themselves," meaning the school attracts the biggest recruits regardless of the coach. Illinois is not one of those schools.
Another problem with the program is that early season success leads to raised expectations for the Big Ten Season. For whatever reason, Illinois has had a tough time with the Big Ten schedule over the last few years. The most popular theory is that the Weber's players are not physically or mentally capable of competing in the physical Big Ten, where sometimes talent is overwhelmed by a will to win. That might apply to this year's team. But I would stress three big reasons why the team has struggled lately. First, Ravonte Rice has been slowed due to an issue with his groin. Since he relies on driving to the basket for the vast majority of his points, obviously his production has fallen. Second, this team really needs a point guard or two. Third, this is a dreadful shooting team. The best shooters are the freshman and the transfers who cannot play this year.
The good news? The 2014-15 team only loses one player, the erratic Bertrand, and gains a couple more freshman, along with those three transfers I previously referred to. That being said, it might not be until the following year before it will be possible to judge Groce, as that will be the first team without any Weber players.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Schlachthof-fünf
How does one ascertain that a book is a "classic?" Before the Internet, it was not so easy. "Greatest Novels" lists were hard to come by. I suppose encyclopedia entries were one way. Certain books just seemed to be part of the American vocabulary. It helped when a book was adapted into a movie. It also helped when an author was famous for something besides writing books. Prizes enabled the book to remain a permanent fixture in the previously mentioned encyclopedias. What books are assigned in the classroom is also a surefire designation of a book as a classic. After all, a teacher would not waste our time on anything less, would he/she?
Closely associated with classroom assignments are Cliff's Notes. I actually only heard them called CliffNotes, but that was in error. Even in my small hometown back in the 1980s I knew of a place that sold them, albeit a limited selection. Here were all the summations, meanings, and answers that one would need for the purposes of the classroom-according to Cliff. It was difficult to look at the list of Cliff's Notes offerings and not come to the conclusion that it was as good of a source for a definitive list of classics. Of course, the shorter books were more likely to be Cliff's Noted, as those are the ones more likely to be assigned in the classroom. Back in the 1980s, one of the more recent books in the collection was Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, released at the end of the 1960s.
I struggled a bit trying to construe Vonnegut's message. Perhaps another reading is needed. [Kids, what follows are topics for that three page paper the teacher is forcing you to write.] The themes included death, perception, and predestination. Death of the unnatural kind permeates the book, and Vonnegut underlines every passing. So it goes.
Perception is interesting. While it seems to revolve around Billy Pilgrim's view of the world, Vonnegut slips in his own views, along with a few other characters like Roland Weary and Kilgore Trout. Billy's view of the world is shaped by his war experience at a young age. Then the plane crash seems to jumble everything up. Kilgore Trout's writing comes to life in his head. He has visions of the future. He is even abducted by Troutian aliens. Reality comes unglued.
Predestination, the belief in the inability to change one's future, is a part of the alien creed. But maybe it is merely a defense mechanism for Billy's traumatized mind. And what does Montana's locket signify, the one whose message is important enough to warrant the only illustration in the book? "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference." This is at odds with the gospel according to Billy.
Vonnegut's description of the war is troubling. Those English prisoners of war and their cushy lifestyle does not seem possible that late in the war. Why would the Germans, who had to be running short on amenities, allow it? Maybe this is a true story related by Vonnegut's own experience. Then there is the whole issue of Dresden, which is damaged by Vonnegut's insistence, both in the "prologue" chapter and in Billy's experience, that the bombing of Dresden was as bad or even worse than Hiroshima and the like. Vonnegut says that 135,000 were killed. Where does he come by that number? A short investigation reveals that this number was quoted from a "historian" who had written a book about Dresden. This "historian" apparently used Goebbels as a source, and unsurprisingly he has been labeled as a holocaust denier, among other things. That book has been largely discredited. In recent years Dresden has claimed at most 25,000 people killed as a result of the bombing. Quite a difference from what Vonnegut espoused, and it is damaging to the book. Unless, that is, this is seen as another issue in the theme of perception. To Billy and Vonnegut, the destruction had to result in over 100,000 deaths, because that is what their eyes and minds were telling them.
So, is Vonnegut's book a classic? That is not really for me to judge, particularly so soon after just one reading. It does offer a lot to chew on. And it will probably stay with me longer than the movie version, about which I remember practically nothing from my viewing 15 years ago. Or maybe I did not see it at all? I do not have the power to recall the events of nearly every day of my life. If you are a regular watcher of 60 Minutes you know what I am referring to. A very small number of people have that power, including Marilu Henner. It sounds a lot like Billy Pilgrim, does it not?
Friday, January 17, 2014
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
Oops-Saving Mr. Banks is now in more theaters than any Best Picture nominee, despite doing weaker business than Wolf or American Hustle over the last two weeks. I guess Banks will be riding the wave that the Best Original Score nomination will provide it.
Scandal!-It turns out it's not necessarily important how many Academy members see your movie, but rather how many you are buddies with. It will be interesting to see how much more press this particular controversy receives. It is the kind of thing that other, less prestigious awards used to be known for. At this point The Golden Globes is not looking all that bad, now that the 31 year old Pia Zadora fiasco is starting to fade from memory.
Stick to what you do best?-"Director" Spike Jonze received three nominations, and none of them are for direction.
Reality Bites-Julia Roberts is in the "Supporting" category despite a role that is a lead performance. This is more chicanery by Harvey Weinstein, but really all studios do it, probably because it works.
It's a lock!-Keep in mind that in recent history the Globes winner rarely matches the Academy winner for Best Picture. Argo did, but last year was a bit of a strange year for predictors. This year the Globes managed to make winners of the two top picks to win at the academy, thanks to the questionable inclusion of American Hustle in the comedy category, so look for another match this year. The guild awards are the true indicators of who will win, as there is significant crossover in the voting constituencies.
Scandal!-It turns out it's not necessarily important how many Academy members see your movie, but rather how many you are buddies with. It will be interesting to see how much more press this particular controversy receives. It is the kind of thing that other, less prestigious awards used to be known for. At this point The Golden Globes is not looking all that bad, now that the 31 year old Pia Zadora fiasco is starting to fade from memory.
Stick to what you do best?-"Director" Spike Jonze received three nominations, and none of them are for direction.
Reality Bites-Julia Roberts is in the "Supporting" category despite a role that is a lead performance. This is more chicanery by Harvey Weinstein, but really all studios do it, probably because it works.
It's a lock!-Keep in mind that in recent history the Globes winner rarely matches the Academy winner for Best Picture. Argo did, but last year was a bit of a strange year for predictors. This year the Globes managed to make winners of the two top picks to win at the academy, thanks to the questionable inclusion of American Hustle in the comedy category, so look for another match this year. The guild awards are the true indicators of who will win, as there is significant crossover in the voting constituencies.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Drop the Pretentiousness
Awards shows are promotional pieces. Perhaps at some point they were geared more towards the ideal of rewarding excellence. That time is long past, for various reasons. The voters' qualifications are suspect. Many nominations and wins are purchased. In the case of the Academy Awards, without a "campaign" one will be lucky to receive a nomination, and a win is nearly impossible. This includes glad-handing and working the room during the season.
Regardless, I have a fascination with the whole process. How the movies rise and fall in the rankings, the problem with being the early favorite, the mystery movie no one has seen that receives the end of the year release. How the whining and the attacks keep the dialogue going. The resulting four hour borefest cannot help but be anticlimactic .
Best Picture appears to come down to two movies. 12 Years a Slave is considered too intense for the older crowd that dominates the Academy electorate. If they turn it off thirty minutes into the movie, they probably are not going to vote for it. American Hustle is a showcase for actors, which is beneficial because the actors' branch is by far the biggest branch in the Academy. It will be hard to beat if it manages nominations for Christian Bale and Jeremy Renner or Bradley Cooper, in addition to Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams. By the way, most people consider her to be iffy for a nomination due to the veteran actresses in the category this year, but Adams has two things going for her: four previous nominations, and the most difficult role in the movie, in addition to juggling accents.
The Wolf of Wall Street's unorthodox handling of a serious topic has been a turnoff to some people, and its meaning and purpose have been misconstrued by people who cannot see past the broader elements of the film. Saving Mr. Banks has a story that normally results in victory come awards time, but some people might be turned off by the unwarranted deification of Walt Disney. Gravity, the favorite to many, is too dominated by special effects (i.e. Star Wars and Avatar). Gravity's consolation prize might be in the director category. None of the other potential nominees have ever been on anyone's radar to win the big prize, and it is too late now for that to change.
Regardless, I have a fascination with the whole process. How the movies rise and fall in the rankings, the problem with being the early favorite, the mystery movie no one has seen that receives the end of the year release. How the whining and the attacks keep the dialogue going. The resulting four hour borefest cannot help but be anticlimactic .
Best Picture appears to come down to two movies. 12 Years a Slave is considered too intense for the older crowd that dominates the Academy electorate. If they turn it off thirty minutes into the movie, they probably are not going to vote for it. American Hustle is a showcase for actors, which is beneficial because the actors' branch is by far the biggest branch in the Academy. It will be hard to beat if it manages nominations for Christian Bale and Jeremy Renner or Bradley Cooper, in addition to Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams. By the way, most people consider her to be iffy for a nomination due to the veteran actresses in the category this year, but Adams has two things going for her: four previous nominations, and the most difficult role in the movie, in addition to juggling accents.
The Wolf of Wall Street's unorthodox handling of a serious topic has been a turnoff to some people, and its meaning and purpose have been misconstrued by people who cannot see past the broader elements of the film. Saving Mr. Banks has a story that normally results in victory come awards time, but some people might be turned off by the unwarranted deification of Walt Disney. Gravity, the favorite to many, is too dominated by special effects (i.e. Star Wars and Avatar). Gravity's consolation prize might be in the director category. None of the other potential nominees have ever been on anyone's radar to win the big prize, and it is too late now for that to change.
Realism Schmilism
One of my favorite games for the 8-bit Nintendo was R.B.I. Baseball. What it lacked in realism it made up for in fun factor. Because it included real names and stats from the 1986 and 1987 seasons (despite not being licensed by MLB), it included the flukey 1987 season in which home runs were flying out of the park in great contrast to the rest of the 1980s. It never was explained what happened that year. Some might claim it was the beginning of PED use (see Canseco and McGwire), but that does not explain why home runs went down to normal levels after that. Anyway, being able to hit with Andre Dawson, who clubbed 49 that year, is one of my fond memories of this game. In stark contrast to all the power numbers was the Cardinals team from that year, which featured several base stealers instead of the normal power laden lineup. Plus Jack Clark, of course.
There was also an arcade version that I remember playing at Wal-Mart. It was similar to the Nintendo game, except that it used much older lineups featuring players like Ruth, Mays, etc. I loved using Carl Hubbell since he was a left handed sidearm pitcher.
Anyway, what brought this to mind is that a new version, R.B.I. Baseball 14, has been announced for release this spring. I have no idea what the 14 refers to, unless they are counting all the versions released in Japan. This version is licensed by Major League Baseball, so it should include real names and stats, and hopefully places like Wrigley Field, etc.
Here is video that a guy made using the R.B.I. game and Vin Scully's call of the bottom of the tenth of game 6 of the Mets-Red Sox World Series.
There was also an arcade version that I remember playing at Wal-Mart. It was similar to the Nintendo game, except that it used much older lineups featuring players like Ruth, Mays, etc. I loved using Carl Hubbell since he was a left handed sidearm pitcher.
Anyway, what brought this to mind is that a new version, R.B.I. Baseball 14, has been announced for release this spring. I have no idea what the 14 refers to, unless they are counting all the versions released in Japan. This version is licensed by Major League Baseball, so it should include real names and stats, and hopefully places like Wrigley Field, etc.
Here is video that a guy made using the R.B.I. game and Vin Scully's call of the bottom of the tenth of game 6 of the Mets-Red Sox World Series.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Jersey Con Job
Spoilers ahead.
There really is not much to say about it. To those people whining that it does not make sense, at least it is a lot less ludicrous than Argo. And this movie has stylish direction and riveting dialogue. Christian Bale dives into his role with ease. Bruce Wayne has been erased. 58484When Rosenfeld is struggling to pop that pill in his mouth, does anyone see a hunky movie star on screen? Of course, understated does not win awards, and it will not this time either.
American Hustle is pleasant enough without really saying anything. It does briefly try to portray the murky waters of political favoritism where legality does not always match the right thing to do. But Rosenfeld's repentance towards Mayor Polito does not seem credible considering Rosenfeld has swindled people his whole life, with little regard for the consequences of his actions. The portrayal of Rosenfeld for a few scant minutes as an apologetic atoner comes across as a strained attempt to make the protagonist of the film a sympathetic figure.
A triumphant Rosenfeld emerges at the end. He has escaped from the FBI's clutches, he has placated the mob, he still has his son, and he still has Amy Adams. That upbeat note rings false. If allowed, Rosenfeld will surely return to the only life he has known, a life built on lies, deception, and enriching himself at other people's expense. Will most filmgoers realize this? No, because they have been hustled by David O. Russell.
There really is not much to say about it. To those people whining that it does not make sense, at least it is a lot less ludicrous than Argo. And this movie has stylish direction and riveting dialogue. Christian Bale dives into his role with ease. Bruce Wayne has been erased. 58484When Rosenfeld is struggling to pop that pill in his mouth, does anyone see a hunky movie star on screen? Of course, understated does not win awards, and it will not this time either.
American Hustle is pleasant enough without really saying anything. It does briefly try to portray the murky waters of political favoritism where legality does not always match the right thing to do. But Rosenfeld's repentance towards Mayor Polito does not seem credible considering Rosenfeld has swindled people his whole life, with little regard for the consequences of his actions. The portrayal of Rosenfeld for a few scant minutes as an apologetic atoner comes across as a strained attempt to make the protagonist of the film a sympathetic figure.
A triumphant Rosenfeld emerges at the end. He has escaped from the FBI's clutches, he has placated the mob, he still has his son, and he still has Amy Adams. That upbeat note rings false. If allowed, Rosenfeld will surely return to the only life he has known, a life built on lies, deception, and enriching himself at other people's expense. Will most filmgoers realize this? No, because they have been hustled by David O. Russell.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Not Such a Good Thing
It always surprised me that "Good Thing" by Fine Young Cannibals was a number one song. Rather slight and repetitive, is it not? Sure, those are two ingredients for a successful pop song, but in this case they do not add up. The song does have a nice retro-feel (not pop), and a soulful piano solo (not pop). This song was also not as popular in their native England, where the band already had several hits. Curiously, the song debuted in 1987's Tin Men, two years before its release as a single.
Roland Gift's high pitched voice and pronounced accent made the lyrics largely unintelligible. After reading them, I do not think I was missing much. Certainly the lyrics do not match the video, which celebrates motor scooters. Wha, wha, what?
The one good thing in my life
Has gone away
I don't know why
She's gone away
I don't know where
Somewhere I can't follow her
The one good thing didn't stay too long
Woo who who who
My back was turned and she was gone
Hey hey hey
Good thing
Where have you gone
Doo doo doobie doo
My good thing
You've been gone too long
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
People say I should forget
New friend tomorrow
Don't get upset
People say she's doing fine
Mutual friends I see sometime
That's not what I want to hear
Woo who who who
I want to hear she wants me near
Good thing
Where have you gone
Doo doo doobie doo
My good thing
You've been gone too long
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
Good thing
Then one day she came back
I was so happy that I didn't act
Morning came
Hey hey hey hey
Into my room
Woo who who who
Caught me dreaming like a fool
Good thing
My good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
My my my my my good thing
Where have you gone
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
My good thing
Hey hey my good thing
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Girl
Where have you gone
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
It's been so long
Good God girl
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Good God girl
Good God girl
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Good God
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Good God
Roland Gift's high pitched voice and pronounced accent made the lyrics largely unintelligible. After reading them, I do not think I was missing much. Certainly the lyrics do not match the video, which celebrates motor scooters. Wha, wha, what?
The one good thing in my life
Has gone away
I don't know why
She's gone away
I don't know where
Somewhere I can't follow her
The one good thing didn't stay too long
Woo who who who
My back was turned and she was gone
Hey hey hey
Good thing
Where have you gone
Doo doo doobie doo
My good thing
You've been gone too long
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
People say I should forget
New friend tomorrow
Don't get upset
People say she's doing fine
Mutual friends I see sometime
That's not what I want to hear
Woo who who who
I want to hear she wants me near
Good thing
Where have you gone
Doo doo doobie doo
My good thing
You've been gone too long
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
Good thing
Then one day she came back
I was so happy that I didn't act
Morning came
Hey hey hey hey
Into my room
Woo who who who
Caught me dreaming like a fool
Good thing
My good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
My my my my my good thing
Where have you gone
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo
My good thing
Hey hey my good thing
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Girl
Where have you gone
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
It's been so long
Good God girl
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Good God girl
Good God girl
Good thing
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Good God
Doo doo doobie doo good thing
Good God
Unwelcome Thaw
The reason I did not contact a roof specialist for help is that I thought maybe these incidents were just flukes, since this problem had not cropped up to this extent in the first five years of living in the house. Last year the winter was mostly mild with very little snow until March, so it was not a concern then. But this winter, with the first big windy snowfall, quite a bit of snow must have blown in, as four days later when the temperature warmed wet spots showed up on the living room ceiling. This is an entirely new spot for the problem. I have also come to the conclusion that this has only became a problem recently because my next door neighbor added on to his house in the back. His house is a two story, whereas mine is a ranch, and so logically snow could blow off of his house onto my roof. The part that he added onto his house must have changed the wind pattern enough to make it much more likely that snow can blow into the vents on my roof.
At first I was skeptical that this could happen. Why would it be acceptable to install vents that would allow snow to blow in? I know that builders are prone to using cheap materials when not under the direction of a future homeowner, but shouldn't there be standards for this? I guess not. I live in one of the windiest parts of the country. Combine that with a fair amount of snow each winter, and this should be foreseeable. It could be that the vents are not the wrong vents, but that they were installed incorrectly. Either way, I guess I am going to have to do something about it. Over the long term this could lead to rotting wood, in addition to messed up insulation and the stained ceilings.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
The Closer
With all the Maddux talk, my mind has been on the 80s Cubs. I was too young at the time to fully comprehend personnel moves, but now it is pretty clear. Jim Frey was a horrible general manager. How bad? Keep in mind that he took over the job from the highly regard Dallas Green. Green made quick fixes to the team through trades-Sandberg, Dernier, Moreland, Sutcliffe, Matthews, and Eckersley were all acquired, while giving up Carter and Buckner. Green rejuvenated the Cubs' minor league system by drafting Maddux, Moyer, Palmeiro, Grace, Dunston, Girardi, Smith, and Walton.
So Frey had big shoes to fill, and he proved to be not up to the task. One of the first things he did was trade Lee Smith to Boston for Calvin Shiraldi and Al Nipper. This looks like it might have been a salary dump. Whatever the reason, it was a disaster in 1988. To replace Smith Frey traded Moreland to San Diego for an over the hill Goose Gossage. Gossage still had good enough stuff to be a setup man, but his days as a competent closer were over.
The next offseason Frey, desperate for a closer, traded Palmeiro and Moyer for Mitch Williams. The trade made little sense, as Palmeiro and Moyer were still very young, were coming off good seasons, and Mitch Williams had been little better than mediocre for Texas. The trade looked a lot better when the Cubs won the division that year with Williams saving 37 games, but Williams reverted to bad after that. It should be noted that it took Moyer several years before he fine tuned his control enough to be a consistent winner, and Palmeiro needed some extra "help" on his way to 500 home runs. So even if Frey had not made the trade, it is not clear whether Palmeiro and Moyer would have benefited the Cubs.
When Williams bombed out, Frey turned to free agency and signed Dave Smith. Smith was awful. Paul Sullivan has the details about Smith, Gossage, and other horrible Cub closers.
Frey also signed George Bell and Danny Jackson. Bell had one ok year for the Cubs before Himes, the Cubs replacement for Frey, traded him for Sammy Sosa. Danny Jackson was one in a long line of erratic left handed pitchers for the Cubs (Shawn Estes and Rich Hill being two other examples).
Himes must be grateful that Jim Frey was so bad. Otherwise Himes might have the title of "worst Cubs G.M." Letting one of the greatest pitchers of all time (Maddux) leave over two million dollars ranks as the worst Cubs move ever.
One last tidbit from my 80s Cubs memory archives-when I was in high school one of my teachers, a big Cubs fan, hung up a poster or a magazine page that was titled "Future Stars." It was a grid divided into four square pictures of "future stars." Who were these future stars? I don't remember exactly, but looking at the date (the class was the fall of '87 and spring of '88) I think those four players would have been Maddux, Palmeiro, Moyer, and the one who did not pan out, Drew Hall. If that is true, then this would be quite the poster. Anyone else remember a poster like that?
So Frey had big shoes to fill, and he proved to be not up to the task. One of the first things he did was trade Lee Smith to Boston for Calvin Shiraldi and Al Nipper. This looks like it might have been a salary dump. Whatever the reason, it was a disaster in 1988. To replace Smith Frey traded Moreland to San Diego for an over the hill Goose Gossage. Gossage still had good enough stuff to be a setup man, but his days as a competent closer were over.
The next offseason Frey, desperate for a closer, traded Palmeiro and Moyer for Mitch Williams. The trade made little sense, as Palmeiro and Moyer were still very young, were coming off good seasons, and Mitch Williams had been little better than mediocre for Texas. The trade looked a lot better when the Cubs won the division that year with Williams saving 37 games, but Williams reverted to bad after that. It should be noted that it took Moyer several years before he fine tuned his control enough to be a consistent winner, and Palmeiro needed some extra "help" on his way to 500 home runs. So even if Frey had not made the trade, it is not clear whether Palmeiro and Moyer would have benefited the Cubs.
When Williams bombed out, Frey turned to free agency and signed Dave Smith. Smith was awful. Paul Sullivan has the details about Smith, Gossage, and other horrible Cub closers.
Frey also signed George Bell and Danny Jackson. Bell had one ok year for the Cubs before Himes, the Cubs replacement for Frey, traded him for Sammy Sosa. Danny Jackson was one in a long line of erratic left handed pitchers for the Cubs (Shawn Estes and Rich Hill being two other examples).
Himes must be grateful that Jim Frey was so bad. Otherwise Himes might have the title of "worst Cubs G.M." Letting one of the greatest pitchers of all time (Maddux) leave over two million dollars ranks as the worst Cubs move ever.
One last tidbit from my 80s Cubs memory archives-when I was in high school one of my teachers, a big Cubs fan, hung up a poster or a magazine page that was titled "Future Stars." It was a grid divided into four square pictures of "future stars." Who were these future stars? I don't remember exactly, but looking at the date (the class was the fall of '87 and spring of '88) I think those four players would have been Maddux, Palmeiro, Moyer, and the one who did not pan out, Drew Hall. If that is true, then this would be quite the poster. Anyone else remember a poster like that?
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Controversy Becomes Her
For forty years, Meryl Streep has avoided controversy. Her life outside of movies has been nondescript, to say the least. So it is nice to read that she is taking a stand on Walt Disney. And no, I do not buy the argument that Walt Disney was a product of his time. Plenty of intelligent people during this time period were enlightened in their opinions about "commonly accepted" views. They might have been a small minority, but that doesn't forgive Disney or anyone else who really should have known better.
The Maddux Narrative
Watching the baseball stuff today I was amused by the talk about how Greg Maddux was calm and collected on the mound. That is not the Maddux I remember from the Cubs years. Whenever there was an argument with an umpire it was fairly common for cursing to be heard over the crowd mics. Well, any Cubs fan who paid much attention in the late eighties should remember Maddux cursing whenever he missed his location. It was easiest to hear in a road game with a sparse crowd. The smaller the crowd (especially make up games or games interrupted by really bad weather), the more one could make out individual voices. Maddux would let loose with G__Dammit! time and time again. I never heard the broadcasters acknowledge this, and I have never heard anyone else talk about this, but it did happen. He might have calmed down by his first Cy Young year, and probably seemed very mature when pitching with the Braves, but I remember the guy who was temperamental.
Back then Maddux was a half-season guy. He would be spectacular for half a season, and then struggle to do anything right for the other half of the season. I do not remember his debut season, but in 1988 he had one of the most spectacular pre-All Star Breaks halves that any pitcher has ever pitched. 15-3 record. The only reason that he did not start the All Star Game is that he pitched the Sunday before-a win against the Padres if I am remembering correctly. [yes, i did remember] After the break he went 3 and 5. I think it was less about the league figuring him out and more about Maddux losing his way with his control. He would have similar years in 89-91, before his Cy Young season in 1992.
Two specific games involving Maddux stand out in my mind. The first was when I saw him win against the Cardinals at Busch Stadium. Maddux was textbook Maddux. Great fielder on the mound, and back then he made more of an effort at hitting, frequently legging out infield hits.
The second game was also against the Cardinals. I think it was in that 1988 season. Wow, I just found the box score for that game. I must have been in school that day, but I must have gotten home just in time to see the end of the game, because I remember it clearly. Or, at least, I thought I remembered it clearly. According to the box score, Maddux pitched into the 11th inning. Even more incredible, Maddux threw 167 pitches. 167 pitches! Today, a manager would be fired for leaving a 22 year old in for 167 pitches. Now I wonder if Maddux had a tired arm in the second half of the 1988 season. Anyway, Maddux got the first two outs in the 11th. Then after two singles, he gave up an infield hit to third base. Even with the bases loaded, Zimmer left him in. Which is a good thing, because Maddux forced a weak grounder to second-OH WAIT! THE BALL HIT THE SEAM AND BOUNCED OVER SANDBERG'S HEAD! So that was one of the losses that Maddux had when he went 15-3 before the break.
Back then Maddux was a half-season guy. He would be spectacular for half a season, and then struggle to do anything right for the other half of the season. I do not remember his debut season, but in 1988 he had one of the most spectacular pre-All Star Breaks halves that any pitcher has ever pitched. 15-3 record. The only reason that he did not start the All Star Game is that he pitched the Sunday before-a win against the Padres if I am remembering correctly. [yes, i did remember] After the break he went 3 and 5. I think it was less about the league figuring him out and more about Maddux losing his way with his control. He would have similar years in 89-91, before his Cy Young season in 1992.
Two specific games involving Maddux stand out in my mind. The first was when I saw him win against the Cardinals at Busch Stadium. Maddux was textbook Maddux. Great fielder on the mound, and back then he made more of an effort at hitting, frequently legging out infield hits.
The second game was also against the Cardinals. I think it was in that 1988 season. Wow, I just found the box score for that game. I must have been in school that day, but I must have gotten home just in time to see the end of the game, because I remember it clearly. Or, at least, I thought I remembered it clearly. According to the box score, Maddux pitched into the 11th inning. Even more incredible, Maddux threw 167 pitches. 167 pitches! Today, a manager would be fired for leaving a 22 year old in for 167 pitches. Now I wonder if Maddux had a tired arm in the second half of the 1988 season. Anyway, Maddux got the first two outs in the 11th. Then after two singles, he gave up an infield hit to third base. Even with the bases loaded, Zimmer left him in. Which is a good thing, because Maddux forced a weak grounder to second-OH WAIT! THE BALL HIT THE SEAM AND BOUNCED OVER SANDBERG'S HEAD! So that was one of the losses that Maddux had when he went 15-3 before the break.
A Big Dustup
A few years ago I had to stop using Tidy Cats litter because of excessive dust. Three months ago I noticed the successor to that cat litter was suddenly very dusty. I chalked it up to a bad bag/pallet of bags. Two months later a third bag contained the same dusty litter. Maybe I should have heeded the warning when a few months back I noticed that the packaging now advertised "low dust" litter instead of "99% dust free" litter.
The dusty litter was not a long term option. The litter is under the stairwell in the basement. An out of the way place, but it is part of a larger room and the litter dust coats everything in the room, and some of it manages to float out into the rest of the finished basement. I tried an air purifier in that room a few years ago, but it could not keep up and seemed to spread the dust around. And that was when the litter was not so dusty.
So I tried a different litter. I was worried about this because I was not sure how the two cats would like it. The one cat has already had bladder issues, and the last thing I need is for this to make his situation worse. Luckily that cat had no problem with the litter. The other cat did not take to it very well. I mixed some old litter in with the new litter, and he jumped right in. He still seems to prefer that mixture, but he is doing some of his business in the purely new litter, so the old litter will be going away very soon.
The litter I switched to is World's Best Cat Litter-the green bag. It is a corn litter, and has a strong odor up close, but I am happy with it. It is a huge improvement in that there is very, very little dust. It also is much easier to scoop. I broke one of the big plastic scoopers trying to scoop the old litter.
The bad part is that this litter is more expensive, but I expect it to last longer. Regardless, the extra cost is worth it.
The dusty litter was not a long term option. The litter is under the stairwell in the basement. An out of the way place, but it is part of a larger room and the litter dust coats everything in the room, and some of it manages to float out into the rest of the finished basement. I tried an air purifier in that room a few years ago, but it could not keep up and seemed to spread the dust around. And that was when the litter was not so dusty.
So I tried a different litter. I was worried about this because I was not sure how the two cats would like it. The one cat has already had bladder issues, and the last thing I need is for this to make his situation worse. Luckily that cat had no problem with the litter. The other cat did not take to it very well. I mixed some old litter in with the new litter, and he jumped right in. He still seems to prefer that mixture, but he is doing some of his business in the purely new litter, so the old litter will be going away very soon.
The litter I switched to is World's Best Cat Litter-the green bag. It is a corn litter, and has a strong odor up close, but I am happy with it. It is a huge improvement in that there is very, very little dust. It also is much easier to scoop. I broke one of the big plastic scoopers trying to scoop the old litter.
The bad part is that this litter is more expensive, but I expect it to last longer. Regardless, the extra cost is worth it.
Cold as Ice
Frozen
Full of spoilers, and I don't care.
The princess, let's call her Ten Inch, for that ten inch waistline, is not the brightest bulb. She chooses to confront her sister at the coronation in front of a lot of people. She also wants to marry some guy she just met. At least the story acknowledges this blunder.
Then there is the newly-crowned queen, let's call her Twelve Inch, for that twelve inch waistline. Evidently she put on a couple pounds while in hiding. Never mind that shut-ins are not normally the healthiest looking people. For whatever reason she goes years without divulging her secret to her sister. One has to wonder what she is waiting for. There does not seem to be anyone to confide in, and keeping yourself confined to one room for years is a rather lonely existence. And then we have the whole young mutant "cannot control my power" aspect that has been done to death in X-Men comics for the last few decades. I guess it could not be more appropriate that Disney now owns Marvel.
Which brings me to the deceased king and queen. They are so concerned about the health of their children that they go visit trolls to save their daughter's life. And yet, they run off on a boat for no apparent good reason, in what amounts to child abandonment. Even if they were not parents it would seem ludicrous. In recorded history, kings and queens rarely if ever left their homeland, or even their castle. There are very good reasons for this. First, who is left in charge? In this movie, apparently NO ONE is in charge except for the princesses. Second, leaving creates a fantastic opportunity for a rival to move in and take over. Third, how reckless is it to go off in a ship? In the 21st century it is not even all that safe to vacation on a cruise liner.
The animation is fine. What it is lacking is a creative spark. The wow factor is lacking. Part of the problem is a lack of direction. Say what you will about Spielberg, but he does know how to ramp up thrilling moments. Brad Bird is another example. Frozen inexplicably has two directors, which ironically enough might explain the lack of direction. Functional, and nothing more.
The story is ordinary. The usual Disneyfied characters are on display. They could not come up with enough humor for the main characters, so they added in a wacky snowman. Great. Some people have raised the fact that the main hero is a woman. Is that really much to brag about for a movie in 2013? Not really a Brave stance, and it ignores the fact that the princess still needs help from the ice merchant.
We are signaled beforehand that Hans is not all he seems to be. First, there are those mutton chops. What Disney hero has a physical trait like that? Once the ice merchant comes into the picture, it is clear that either Disney will uncharacteristically present a love triangle, or Hans will be exposed as a fraud. And of course Disney took the easy way out. After all, you can never have too many villains.
The songs are weak. Typical Broadway schlock. The music is forgettable, and the lyrics are bland. There might have only been ten songs, but it sure felt like more. Anyone who likes these songs must have really low standards for what is good in a musical.
Unfortunately the success of Frozen means that we will have more animated mediocrity in the future. Notice that while recent Pixar and Dreamworks films have diminished in quality, other studios are taking advantage of the void, and Disney branded films are now creeping back into the dominant position. It is a sad state of affairs for animation.
Full of spoilers, and I don't care.
The princess, let's call her Ten Inch, for that ten inch waistline, is not the brightest bulb. She chooses to confront her sister at the coronation in front of a lot of people. She also wants to marry some guy she just met. At least the story acknowledges this blunder.
Then there is the newly-crowned queen, let's call her Twelve Inch, for that twelve inch waistline. Evidently she put on a couple pounds while in hiding. Never mind that shut-ins are not normally the healthiest looking people. For whatever reason she goes years without divulging her secret to her sister. One has to wonder what she is waiting for. There does not seem to be anyone to confide in, and keeping yourself confined to one room for years is a rather lonely existence. And then we have the whole young mutant "cannot control my power" aspect that has been done to death in X-Men comics for the last few decades. I guess it could not be more appropriate that Disney now owns Marvel.
Which brings me to the deceased king and queen. They are so concerned about the health of their children that they go visit trolls to save their daughter's life. And yet, they run off on a boat for no apparent good reason, in what amounts to child abandonment. Even if they were not parents it would seem ludicrous. In recorded history, kings and queens rarely if ever left their homeland, or even their castle. There are very good reasons for this. First, who is left in charge? In this movie, apparently NO ONE is in charge except for the princesses. Second, leaving creates a fantastic opportunity for a rival to move in and take over. Third, how reckless is it to go off in a ship? In the 21st century it is not even all that safe to vacation on a cruise liner.
The animation is fine. What it is lacking is a creative spark. The wow factor is lacking. Part of the problem is a lack of direction. Say what you will about Spielberg, but he does know how to ramp up thrilling moments. Brad Bird is another example. Frozen inexplicably has two directors, which ironically enough might explain the lack of direction. Functional, and nothing more.
The story is ordinary. The usual Disneyfied characters are on display. They could not come up with enough humor for the main characters, so they added in a wacky snowman. Great. Some people have raised the fact that the main hero is a woman. Is that really much to brag about for a movie in 2013? Not really a Brave stance, and it ignores the fact that the princess still needs help from the ice merchant.
We are signaled beforehand that Hans is not all he seems to be. First, there are those mutton chops. What Disney hero has a physical trait like that? Once the ice merchant comes into the picture, it is clear that either Disney will uncharacteristically present a love triangle, or Hans will be exposed as a fraud. And of course Disney took the easy way out. After all, you can never have too many villains.
The songs are weak. Typical Broadway schlock. The music is forgettable, and the lyrics are bland. There might have only been ten songs, but it sure felt like more. Anyone who likes these songs must have really low standards for what is good in a musical.
Unfortunately the success of Frozen means that we will have more animated mediocrity in the future. Notice that while recent Pixar and Dreamworks films have diminished in quality, other studios are taking advantage of the void, and Disney branded films are now creeping back into the dominant position. It is a sad state of affairs for animation.
PEDs and the Baseball Hall of Fame
The 2014 nominees for the Baseball Hall of Fame are soon to be announced. If I had a vote, I would not vote for someone who I feel used PEDs to enhance his performance. Of course, not everyone who used PEDs has been outed. So then how do I decide who to vote for? Somewhat similar to the way that juries decide whether someone is guilty. Only I am using a civil burden of proof, i.e. more likely than not.
What evidence do I use? What do your eyes tell you? With Mark McGuire, it was obvious. With Maddux, it was obvious that he was not using. Statistics are really more useful than the eye test. Did the player accomplish something in a season that seems incredible, if not record breaking? Did the player achieve some of his better seasons at an advanced age (35+)? Those two questions go a long way toward eliminating all the questionable candidates.
Some people claim that this is merely guesswork, and that it is impossible to be sure about the PED use that has not been confirmed. Yes, it is guesswork, but the HOF voters have already made a lot of questionable choices in the past, and my choices will at the very least match that level of responsibility.
The steroid era pretty much began with Canseco in 1986. McGuire showed up in 1987. Lenny Dykstra was a small guy who appeared more bulked up each year, culminating in statistics that did not look right for a guy who was a mediocre hitter for the Mets. Regardless of Dykstra's PED use, his career numbers are nowhere close to HOF caliber.
1993 was Mike Piazza's rookie year. Piazza's numbers each year were stunning for a catcher, very Yogi Berra like. Not for a second do I believe that they were legitimate. The story on Piazza is that he was drafted in the 62nd round by the Dodgers as a favor to Tommy Lasorda. Lasorda thought so little of Piazza's hitting ability that he advised him to learn the catching position. And yet, Piazza was able to quickly transform himself into one of the greatest, if not the greatest, hitting catchers of all time. Steroid use probably became much more widespread beginning in 1992, and the numbers started to become outrageous in the strike shortened season of 1994. The first testing of any kind was 2003. Piazza's peak years were from 1993 to 2002. After 2002 his highest batting average was .286 and his highest homerun total was 22. Are we to assume that it is a coincidence that his numbers immediately dropped off the very same year that testing began? He turned 34 in 2003, so a fall in production could be expected. But still, it is quite a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence for me.
Jeff Bagwell is another guy whose best years fit almost entirely in the peak steroid era. He didn't hit over 20 homers until his fourth full length season. That season, 1994 was the strike year. He hit 39 home runs in only 110 games. 39 home runs, in a shortened season, when he had never hit over 20 home runs before, and last but not least, playing half his games in the hitter unfriendly Astrodome. Seems like quite an unlikely feat. Bagwell's last productive year was 2004 (which was also Bonds' last big year), the year that baseball began penalizing players for testing positive. Bagwell admitted taking Andro, which was later named a banned substance. Sure, his career essentially ended at age 36, which seems "normal." But with the testing in place it would have been very difficult for him to take the same substances that prolonged the careers of so many hitters pre-2004. Another peculiar aspect of Bagwell's career is that he was not much of a power hitter in the minor leagues (only 6 homers?), which is why Boston traded him for relief pitcher Larry Anderson. Bagwell fails the "more likely than not" standard.
The other guys, Maddux, Glavine, Biggio, and Thomas all pass the test. Biggio is a little iffy to me because he was more of a longevity guy. I would not put him in this year. Thomas is the stereotypical big first baseman with a natural body type that is going to result in a lot of home runs. Is it possible he took something? Sure. But Thomas was a first round draft pick who was always expected to be a big power hitter. He also always had that big hulking body throughout his career-no huge transformation during the off-season. Originally Thomas was given a football scholarship at Auburn before switching to baseball due to injuries.
What about Jack Morris? Well, it is kinda ridiculous that one of the writers voted for Morris and left Maddux off his ballot. However, it is hard to argue with his reason that he would not vote in players from the steroid era. Except, Morris played well into the 90s. Who can say for sure that Morris didn't have help during those later years? Morris is quite the anomaly for somehow managing to stay healthy throughout his career despite throwing a ton of forkballs and a ton of innings. In fact, I cannot think of another pitcher who threw that many forkballs who came close to having a long career. Suspicious, but I'm just going to call Morris a freak of nature and assume he did not use PEDs. But was Morris good enough for the HOF? The numbers seem to say no. But I would put him in for one reason-he was the most dominant pitcher in the 80s who had good enough numbers to be seriously considered for the HOF. Go ahead and look at the list of the top pitchers from the 80s. Either they had better decades in the 70s or 90s, or they flamed out too quickly. The two Dodgers pitchers, Valenzuela and Hershiser, are good examples of guys who were dominant for a few years and then played out several seasons of mediocrity. Morris should be in, though evidently he will have to wait for the Veterans Committee to put him in.
What evidence do I use? What do your eyes tell you? With Mark McGuire, it was obvious. With Maddux, it was obvious that he was not using. Statistics are really more useful than the eye test. Did the player accomplish something in a season that seems incredible, if not record breaking? Did the player achieve some of his better seasons at an advanced age (35+)? Those two questions go a long way toward eliminating all the questionable candidates.
Some people claim that this is merely guesswork, and that it is impossible to be sure about the PED use that has not been confirmed. Yes, it is guesswork, but the HOF voters have already made a lot of questionable choices in the past, and my choices will at the very least match that level of responsibility.
The steroid era pretty much began with Canseco in 1986. McGuire showed up in 1987. Lenny Dykstra was a small guy who appeared more bulked up each year, culminating in statistics that did not look right for a guy who was a mediocre hitter for the Mets. Regardless of Dykstra's PED use, his career numbers are nowhere close to HOF caliber.
1993 was Mike Piazza's rookie year. Piazza's numbers each year were stunning for a catcher, very Yogi Berra like. Not for a second do I believe that they were legitimate. The story on Piazza is that he was drafted in the 62nd round by the Dodgers as a favor to Tommy Lasorda. Lasorda thought so little of Piazza's hitting ability that he advised him to learn the catching position. And yet, Piazza was able to quickly transform himself into one of the greatest, if not the greatest, hitting catchers of all time. Steroid use probably became much more widespread beginning in 1992, and the numbers started to become outrageous in the strike shortened season of 1994. The first testing of any kind was 2003. Piazza's peak years were from 1993 to 2002. After 2002 his highest batting average was .286 and his highest homerun total was 22. Are we to assume that it is a coincidence that his numbers immediately dropped off the very same year that testing began? He turned 34 in 2003, so a fall in production could be expected. But still, it is quite a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence for me.
Jeff Bagwell is another guy whose best years fit almost entirely in the peak steroid era. He didn't hit over 20 homers until his fourth full length season. That season, 1994 was the strike year. He hit 39 home runs in only 110 games. 39 home runs, in a shortened season, when he had never hit over 20 home runs before, and last but not least, playing half his games in the hitter unfriendly Astrodome. Seems like quite an unlikely feat. Bagwell's last productive year was 2004 (which was also Bonds' last big year), the year that baseball began penalizing players for testing positive. Bagwell admitted taking Andro, which was later named a banned substance. Sure, his career essentially ended at age 36, which seems "normal." But with the testing in place it would have been very difficult for him to take the same substances that prolonged the careers of so many hitters pre-2004. Another peculiar aspect of Bagwell's career is that he was not much of a power hitter in the minor leagues (only 6 homers?), which is why Boston traded him for relief pitcher Larry Anderson. Bagwell fails the "more likely than not" standard.
The other guys, Maddux, Glavine, Biggio, and Thomas all pass the test. Biggio is a little iffy to me because he was more of a longevity guy. I would not put him in this year. Thomas is the stereotypical big first baseman with a natural body type that is going to result in a lot of home runs. Is it possible he took something? Sure. But Thomas was a first round draft pick who was always expected to be a big power hitter. He also always had that big hulking body throughout his career-no huge transformation during the off-season. Originally Thomas was given a football scholarship at Auburn before switching to baseball due to injuries.
What about Jack Morris? Well, it is kinda ridiculous that one of the writers voted for Morris and left Maddux off his ballot. However, it is hard to argue with his reason that he would not vote in players from the steroid era. Except, Morris played well into the 90s. Who can say for sure that Morris didn't have help during those later years? Morris is quite the anomaly for somehow managing to stay healthy throughout his career despite throwing a ton of forkballs and a ton of innings. In fact, I cannot think of another pitcher who threw that many forkballs who came close to having a long career. Suspicious, but I'm just going to call Morris a freak of nature and assume he did not use PEDs. But was Morris good enough for the HOF? The numbers seem to say no. But I would put him in for one reason-he was the most dominant pitcher in the 80s who had good enough numbers to be seriously considered for the HOF. Go ahead and look at the list of the top pitchers from the 80s. Either they had better decades in the 70s or 90s, or they flamed out too quickly. The two Dodgers pitchers, Valenzuela and Hershiser, are good examples of guys who were dominant for a few years and then played out several seasons of mediocrity. Morris should be in, though evidently he will have to wait for the Veterans Committee to put him in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)